EN BANC
Agenda of
Item No. 51
G.R.
No. 171101 HACIENDA LUISITA, INC., ET AL., petitioners v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL, ET AL., respondents.
Promulgated:
July
5, 2011
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
SEPARATE CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
BRION, J.:
On
The Court is mainly called upon to decide the legality of the
HLIs SDP. An underlying issue is
whether the PARC has the power and authority to revoke the SDP that it
previously approved; if so, whether there is legal basis to revoke it and place
the Hacienda Luisita under compulsory
coverage of the CARP. The Court has to
resolve, too, whether the petitioners-intervenors Luisita Industrial Park
Corporation (LIPCO) and Rizal
Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC)
legally acquired the converted parcels of land (acquired lands) from HLI.
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
Acquisition of Hacienda Luisita
To put this case in its proper context, I begin with a review
of HLIs history and the significant events that ultimately led to the present
case.
The Hacienda Luisita
is a 6,443 hectare parcel of land originally owned by the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera).[1] In 1957, the Spanish owners of Tabacalera
decided to sell this land and its sugar mill, Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Jose Cojuangco, Sr. took interest and requested assistance from the
Philippine government in raising the necessary funds through: (a) the Central
Bank, to obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturers Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the
sugar mill; and (b) the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), to obtain a
peso loan for the purchase of the Hacienda. The Central Bank used a portion of the
countrys dollar reserves as security for Cojuangcos loan with the MTC on the condition that Cojuangco would
acquire Hacienda Luisita for
distribution to farmers within 10 years from its acquisition.[2]
The GSIS also approved Jose Cojuangco, Sr.s loan for P5.9 million under
Resolution No. 3203 (November 25, 1957) which stated in part:
12. That the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita shall be subdivided by the applicant-corporation among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions;[3]
At the urging of Jose Cojuangco, Sr., GSIS issued Resolution No. 356
(February 5, 1958), amending Resolution No. 3203 in the following manner:
That the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita shall be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure Act;[4]
Thus, on
Ten (10) years after the
acquisition of Hacienda Luisita, the land
remained undistributed, contrary to the conditions stated in the loan/security
agreements. Citing GSIS Resolution No. 356, the Cojuangcos reasoned out that
there were no tenants in the Hacienda;
thus, there was no one to distribute the land to.[6]
On
The Stock Distribution Option Agreement
While the case was pending
with the CA, Corazon Aquino became President of the
In view of these developments, the government withdrew its case against
the Cojuangcos on
On
On
On
Land Conversion and
On
Thereafter, on
On
On
On
When LIPCO could not pay its outstanding loan to RCBC, it
entered a dacion en pago to settle
the loan which had ballooned to P432.05 million by November 2002.[24] On
HLI also sold the remaining 200 hectares of industrial land
to Luisita Realty Corporation (Luisita
Realty), 100 hectares in 1997 for P250 million, and another 100
hectares in 1998 for another P250 million.[26]
(Details of this sale are not clear from the records of the present case as
Luisita Realty is not an active party to the case.)
The Petitions before PARC
Claiming that the HLI did not deliver on its promises under
the SDOA/SDP, the Supervisory Group of workers of HLI filed a petition with the
DAR on
On
Based on the parties pleadings and the ocular inspection
conducted, the Special Task Force issued a Terminal Report on
VI. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
1. Providing for the quintessence and spirit of the agrarian reform program, Republic Act No. 6657 explicitly provides:
SECTION 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. It is the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.
To this end, a more equitable distribution and ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation and to the ecological needs of the nation, shall be undertaken to provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands (underscoring added).
Within the context of the foregoing policy/objective, the farmer/farmworker beneficiaries (FWBs) in agricultural land owned and operated by corporations may be granted the option by the latter, with the intervention and prior certification of DAR, xxx the right to purchase such portion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the companys total asset xxx (Sec. 31, Rep. Act No. 6657). Toward this end, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1988, copy of which is attached as Annex K and made an integral part hereof, which requires that the stock distribution option (SDO) shall meet the following criteria, reading, inter alia:
a. that the continued operation of the corporation with its agricultural land intact and unfragmented is viable, with potential for growth and increased profitability;
b. that the plan for the stock distribution to qualified beneficiaries would result in increased income and greater benefits to them, than if the lands were divided and distributed to them individually;
xxxx.
And to ensure effective and fair implementation of the contemplated Stock Distribution Plan (SDP), the said AO also provides:
SEC. 12. Revocation of Certificate of Compliance. Non-compliance with any of the requirements of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by these Implementing Guidelines shall be grounds for the revocation of the Certificate of Compliance issued to the corporate landowner-applicant.
SEC. 13. Reservation Clause Nothing herein shall be construed as precluding the PARC from making its own independent evaluation and assessment of the stock distribution plan of the corporate landowner-applicant and from prescribing other requirements.
Herein, however, there is yet no Certificate of Compliance issued.
The reason is simple. Despite the lapse of sixteen (16) years, from the time the SDP was approved in November 1989, by resolution of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), the objective and policy of CARP, i.e., acquisition and distribution (herein under the Stock Distribution Plan, only shares of stocks) is yet to be fully completed; the FWBs, instead of the promised/envisioned better life under the CARP (herein, as corporate owner), do still live in want, in abject poverty, highlighted by the resulting loss of lives in their vain/futile attempt to be financially restored at least to where they were before the CARP(SDP) was implemented. While they were then able to make both ends meet, with the SDP, their lives became miserable.
2. For the foregoing considerations, as further dramatized by the following violations/noncompliance with the guidelines prescribed, which are legally presumed as integrated in the agreements/accords/stipulations arrived at thereunder like the HLI SDP, namely:
2.1 Noncompliance with Section 11 of Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1988, which provides:
The approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant of the approval thereof by the PARC and the transfer of the shares of stocks in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded in the stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation plan.
The Stock Distribution Plan, however, submitted a 30-year implementation period in terms of the transfer of shares of stocks to the farmworkers beneficiaries (FWBs). The MOA provides:
At the end of each fiscal year: for a period of 30 years, SECOND PARTY shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY on the basis of the number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of
Plainly, pending the issuance of the corresponding shares of stocks, the FWBs remain ordinary farmers and/or farmworkers and the land remain under the full ownership and control of the original owner, the HLI/TADECO.
To date the issuance and transfer of the shares of stocks, together with the recording of the transfer, are yet to be complied with.
2.2 Noncompliance with the representations/warranties made under section 5(a) and (b) of said Administrative Order No. 10.
As claimed by HLI itself, the corporate activity has already stopped so that the contemplated profitability, increased income and greater benefits enumerated in the SDP have remained mere illusions.
2.3 The agricultural land involved was not maintained unfragmented. At least, 500 hectares hereof have been carved out after its land use has been converted to non-agricultural uses.
The recall of said SDP/SDO of HLI is recommended. More so since:
1. It is contrary to Public Policy
Section 2 of Republic Act 6657 provides that the welfare of the landless farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice. As such, the State undertake a more equitable distribution and ownership of land that shall provide farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.
In the case of Hacienda Luisita, the farmworkers alleged that the quality of their lives has not improved. In fact, it even deteriorated especially with the HLI Management declaration that the company has not gained profits, in the last 15 years, that there could be no declaration and distribution of dividends.
2. The matter of issuance/distribution shares of stocks in lieu of actual distribution of the agricultural land involved, was made totally dependent on the discretion/caprice of HLI. Under the setup, the agreement is grossly onerous to the FWBs as their man days of work cannot depart from whatever management HLI unilaterally directs.
They can be denied the opportunity to be granted a share of stock by just not allowing them to work altogether under the guise of rotation. Meanwhile, within the 30-year period of bondage, they may already reach retirement or, worse, get retrenched for any reason, then, they forever lose whatever benefit he could have received as regular agrarian beneficiary under the CARP if only the SDP of HLI were not authorized or approved.
Incidentally, the FWBs did not have participation in the valuation of the agricultural land for the purpose of determining its proportionate equity in relation to the total assets of the corporation. Apparently, the sugarlands were undervalued.
3. The FWBs were misled into believing by the HLI, through its carefully worded Proposal that xxx the stock distribution plan envisaged by Tarlac Development Corporation, in effect, assured of:
A. Distributing the shares of stock over a number of years among the qualified beneficiaries at no cost to them;
B. Allowing the farmworker to continue to work on the land as such and receive the wages and other benefits provided for by his collective bargaining agreement with the corporate landowner;
C. Entitling him to receive dividends, whether in cash or in stock, on the shares already distributed to him and benefit from whatever appreciation in value that the said shares may gain as the corporation becomes profitable;
D. Qualifying him to become the recipient of whatever income-augmenting and benefit-improving schemes that the spin-off corporation may establish, such as the payment of the guaranteed three (3%) percent of gross sales every year and the free residential or homelots to be allotted to family beneficiaries of the plan; and
E. Keeping the agricultural land intact and unfragmented, to maintain the viability of the sugar operation involving the farm as a single unit and thus, warrant to the acknowledged farmworker-beneficiaries, hand-in-hand with their acquisition of the shares of the capital stock of the corporation owning the land, a continuing and stable source of income (Annex A, supra).
At the expense of being repetitive, the sugar-coated assurances were, more than enough to made them fall for the SDO as they made them feel rich as stock holder of a rich and famous corporation despite the dirt in their hands and the tatters, they use; given the feeling of security of tenure in their work when there is none; expectation to receive dividends when the corporation has already suspended operations allegedly due to losses; and a stable sugar production by maintaining the agricultural lands when a substantial portion thereof, almost 1/8 of the total area, has already been converted to non-agricultural uses.
Based on the Terminal Report, the DAR issued a Memorandum
dated September 30, 2005, recommending to the PARC Executive Committee the
revocation of the HLI SDP that the PARC initially approved under Resolution No.
89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989. According to the
The DAR Special Legal Team, created by the undersigned to make a follow through on the work started by the Hacienda Luisita Task Force during the time of former Secretary Rene C. Villa, for the purpose of reviewing the implementation of subject SDP, has conducted a thorough review of Hacienda Luisitas operation in relation to its implementation, and consistent with the provisions of the relevant PARC resolution and the subsequent Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed by and between the HLI Management and the concerned Farm Workers Beneficiaries (FWBs), has recommend (sic) for the scrapping and/or revocation of said SDP, on the following grounds, to wit:
1. That despite the lapse of sixteen (16) years, the lives of the concerned Farm Workers Beneficiaries (FWBs) became even more miserable, contrary to what has been envisioned by the said SDP. This reality clearly undermines Section 2 of RA 6657 which provides, that the welfare of landless farm workers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice, under which context, the State shall undertake a more equitable distribution and ownership of land that shall provide farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.
2. Non-compliance on the part of HLI to relevant provisions of Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1988, specifically Sections 5(a) and 5(b) and Section 11, thereof, in relation to the implementation of said SDP.
Section 5 (a) and (b) provides:
Section 5. Criteria for Evaluation Proposal The stock distribution plan submitted by the corporate landowner-applicant shall meet the following minimum criteria:
a. That the continued operation of the corporation with its agricultural land intact and unfragmented is viable, with potential for growth and increased profitability;
b. That the plan for stock distribution to qualified beneficiaries would result in increased income and greater benefits to them, than if their lands were divided and distributed to them individually; xxx
The following are the violations committed in the above-cited provisions, to wit:
- The HLI Management declared that the company has not gained profits in the last 15 years. Hence, the FWBs of HLI do not receive financial return i.e., ten percent (10%) dividend, three percent (3%) gross production share (partial), and three percent (3%) out of thirty three percent representing equity shares from the proceeds of the sale of the converted land from HLI (partial);
- In the Focused Group Discussion (FGC) and Ocular Inspection (OCI), it was found that the number of shares of stocks to be received by the FWBs depends on their designations (i.e., permanent, casual, or seasonal) and the number of man days. Retired and retrenched workers are not given shares of stocks and cease to be stockholders. This setup is grossly onerous to the FWBs and one-sided in favour of HLI;
- Not all FWBs were given homelots; and
- The subject agricultural land was not maintained unfragmented. More than 1/8 of the total area or 500 hectares has already been converted to non-agricultural use.
Section 11 provides:
Section 11. Implementation Monitoring of the Plan the approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within the three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant of the approval thereof by the PARC and the transfer of the shares of stocks in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded on the stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation of the stock distribution plan.
Upon completion, the corporate landowner-applicant shall be issued a Certificate of Compliance. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his designated representatives shall strictly monitor the implementation to determine whether or not there has been compliance with the approved stock distribution plan as well as the requirements of the CARP. For this purpose, the corporate landowner-applicant shall make available its premises for ocular inspection, its personnel for interview, and its records for examination at normal business hours.
Clearly,
there is no Certificate of Compliance issued up to this date, or after sixteen
(16) years from the time of approval of said SDP by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council. This could be traced to one of the onerous provisions of the
MOA between HLI and the FWBs which stipulates a 30-year period of
implementation to complete the required distribution of shares of stocks, a
clear violation of the explicit provision of Section 11 of Administrative Order
No. 10, Series of 1988, mandating a 3-month period of implementation for such
purposes.[31]
On
The Present Case
While its motion for reconsideration was still pending with
the DAR, HLI filed the present petition for certiorari
with this Court, assailing PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 and the Notice of
Coverage. On
On
On
On
The Court conducted oral arguments on
On
THE ISSUES
HLI holds the view that the PARC has no authority to nullify,
revoke or rescind the PARC-approved SDP. It further disputes the private
respondent farmer groups claim that the SDP is void for being illegal. HLI
stresses in this regard that the SDP authorized the distribution of the
following benefits to the FWBs:
a.
59
million shares of stock distributed for free including fringe benefits;
b.
P3 billion in
salaries, wages, and other benefits;
c.
P150 million
representing 3% of the gross sales of the production of the agricultural lands;
d.
P37.5 million
representing 3% of the proceeds from the sale of the 500 hectares of
agricultural land;
e.
P2.4 million
representing 3% of the proceeds from the sale of the 80 hectares for the
Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX); and
f.
240
sqm. homelots to each of the 3,274 families of the FWBs, distributed for free.[40]
The FWBs, represented by the Supervisory Group, Alyansa ng
mga AMBALA and FARM, contradict this HLI position
with the claim that in the 16 years that the HLI was operational, their lives
grew progressively worse, due mainly to HLIs failure to comply with its
promises and obligations under the SDP.
Taking this argument further, FARM opines that the second
paragraph of Section 31 (providing for the stock distribution option as a mode
of agrarian reform) is unconstitutional, as it violates the intent of Section
4, Article XIII of the Constitution, which recognizes the right of farmers and
farmworkers to own, directly or collectively, the lands they till. FARM also claims that this provision contains
a suspect classification involving a vulnerable sector protected by the
Constitution, as it discriminates against farmers working on corporate
farms/haciendas.
From
the various submitted pleadings,[41]
the parties call upon the Court to resolve the following issues:
I.
Whether
the private respondents are the real parties-in-interest and have the legal
personality to file their petitions before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);
II.
Whether
Section 31 of the CARL, providing for the stock distribution option, is
constitutional;
III.
Whether
the PARC has jurisdiction to recall or revoke the HLIs SDP that it earlier
approved;
IV.
Whether
there is legal or factual basis to revoke the SDP; and
V.
Whether
LIPCO and RCBC are transferees in good faith.
I submit this Separate
Opinion to concur with some of the positions in the ponencia and in the other opinions, and to express my own
positions, particularly on the
consequences of the illegality of the SDP.
THE SEPARATE OPINION
I.
The private respondent farmer groups are real
parties-in-interest
HLI
concedes that the private respondent farmer groups, whose members signed and
filed the petitions before the DAR, are real parties-in-interest.[42] These groups are the Supervisory Group
(represented by Julio Zuniga and Windsor Andaya) and AMBALA (represented by
Rene Galang and Noel Mallari). FARM
(represented by Renato Lalic), a newly-formed organization of former AMBALA
members, sought to intervene in the proceedings before the Court to assail the
constitutionality of Section 31 of the CARL.
At
the same time, HLI cautions that their interest in this case does not
necessarily characterize them as farmers and regular farmworkers who are
entitled to landownership under the CARL.[43] HLI argues that the farmers and regular
farmworkers entitled to own the lands they till exclude seasonal farmworkers,
as the Court ruled in Carlos O. Fortich,
et al. v. Renato C. Corona, et al.[44]
Thus, it posits that the private respondents who are not among its 337
permanent farmworkers[45]
cannot be considered as beneficiaries under Section 22 of the CARL.[46]
The requirement of standing involves
a partys right to present his case and to participate in the proceedings
before the court. To have standing, a
party must stand to be benefitted or injured by the judgment in the suit, or to
be entitled to the avails of the suit;[47] he must have sustained, or will sustain,
direct injury as a result of its enforcement.[48] Since the central question in this case
involves the validity of the SDOA/SDP, those who stand to be benefited or
injured by the Courts judgment on this question are necessarily real
parties-in-interest.
The real parties-in-interest as
reflected in the pleadings, are the following: (1) those who are signatories of
the
Thus, Rene Galang, who started his
employment with HLI in 1990 after the SDOA was executed, also possesses
standing to participate in this case, since he is considered a qualified
beneficiary even if he was not an SDOA signatory like Julio Zuniga, Windsor
Andaya and Noel Mallari. Although FARM
is an organization created only after the present petition was filed with the
Court, its members are qualified beneficiaries of the SDOA and, like Rene
Galang, are also clothed with the requisite standing.
The
Court cannot test a partys standing based on who should be considered
qualified beneficiaries under Section 22 of the CARL, which, as HLI argued on
the basis of our ruling in Fortich,[50]
excludes seasonal workers. Section 22 of
the CARL, in relation to the Fortich
ruling, will find application only if the Court rules that the SDOA/SDP is
illegal and confirms the compulsory coverage and distribution of Hacienda Luisita under the CARL. Before any such ruling is made, the
application of a Section 22/Fortich-based
standard of standing will not only be premature; it will also deny due process
to those who qualify as beneficiaries under the SDOA/SDP but who may not
qualify as such under the Fortich standard.
Thus, HLIs arguments on this matter are irrelevant to the question of
standing.
RCBC
and LIPCOs intervention is permissible based on the standards provided under
Section 1, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court:
Section 1. Who may intervene. A person
who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of
either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be
adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the
custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be
allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of
the original parties, and whether or not the intervenors rights may be fully
protected in a separate proceeding. [Emphasis ours.]
Their interest in this case stems
from being the purchasers of 300 hectares of
HLI land, which the PARC included in its Notice of Compulsory
Coverage. Thus, the Courts resolution
of this case will directly affect their right to the purchased lands, as they
stand to be stripped of their ownership and possession of these lands.
II.
Constitutionality of stock distribution option under
the CARL
In the exercise of the power of judicial review over a
legislative act alleged to be unconstitutional, the Court must ensure that the
constitutional issue meets the following essential requirements:
(1) there is an actual case or controversy;
(2) the constitutional question is raised at the
earliest possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi; and
(3) the issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota of the case.[51]
I agree that the constitutional issue in the present case
fails to comply with the lis mota
requirement. The settled rule is that courts
will refrain from ruling on the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly
unavoidable and the issue lies at the core of, or is the core of, the dispute
in the case;[52] In
other words, the case cannot be resolved unless the
constitutional question is passed upon.[53]
Equally settled is the presumption of constitutionality that every law carries;
to justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of
the Constitution, not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.[54]
The present dispute is principally anchored on the alleged
grave abuse of discretion that the PARC committed when it revoked HLIs SDP.
All the other issues raised, such as the extent of the PARCs jurisdiction, the
legality of the SDOA, and LIPCOs and RCBCs rights as transferees of portions
of HLIs lands, originate from this determination. In my view (and as Justices
Velasco and Sereno also posit), the Court can resolve these issues without
having to delve into the constitutionality of the stock distribution option
embodied in Section 31 of CARL. Contrary
therefore to the Separate Opinion of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, I see no
compelling reason for this Court to consider the constitutional issue. This issue is likewise best left unresolved,
given that the CARL has now been superseded by RA 9700[55]
and the stock distribution option is no longer allowed by law; not only is a
constitutional pronouncement not necessary as discussed above, but such
pronouncement may even unsettle what to date are stable stock distribution
relationships under this superseded law.
III.
The PARCs power to revoke its previous approval of
the SDP
I
also maintain that the PARCs power and authority to approve the SDP under
Section 31 of the CARL includes, by implication, the power to revoke this
approval.
The PARC was created via Executive Order (EO) No. 229, which
provides:
Section 18. The
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC). To coordinate the implementation of the CARP and to ensure the timely
and effective delivery of the necessary support services, there is hereby
created the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council composed of the President as Chairman, and the
Secretaries or Heads of the following agencies, as follows:
|
Department of Agrarian
Reform |
Vice Chairman |
|
Department of Agriculture |
Vice Chairman |
|
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources |
Vice Chairman |
|
Executive Secretary |
Member |
|
Department of Budget and
Management |
Member |
|
Department of Finance |
Member |
|
Department of Justice |
Member |
|
Department of Labor and
Employment |
Member |
|
Department of Local
Government |
Member |
|
Department of Public Works
and Highways |
Member |
|
Department of Trade and
Industry |
Member |
|
Department of Transportation
and Communications |
Member |
|
National Economic and
Development Authority |
Member |
|
Land Bank of the |
Member |
|
Presidential Commission on
Good Government |
Member |
The
President shall appoint representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries and
affected landowners as members of PARC.
The
DAR shall provide the Secretariat for the PARC and the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform shall be the Director-General thereof.
The PARC shall formulate
and/or implement the policies, rules and regulations necessary to
implement each component of the CARP, and may authorize any of its members to formulate rules
and regulations concerning aspects of agrarian reform falling within their area
of responsibility.
Given this composition and assigned
mission, with the President of the
The PARCs authority to approve the SDP is expressed in Section 10 of EO No.
229, which provides:
Section 10. Corporate Landowners. Corporate landowners may give their workers and other qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the land assets bear in relation to the corporation's total assets, and grant additional compensation which may be used for this [these] purposes. The approval by the PARC of a plan for such stock distribution, and its initial implementation, shall be deemed compliance with the land distribution requirements of the CARP.
The CARL preserved the PARCs
authority to approve the SDP in its Section 31, which states:
Section
31. Corporate Landowners. - Corporate landowners may voluntarily
transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect to their equity or participation.
Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the following condition are complied with:
(a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
(b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation or association;
(c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and features as all other shares; and
(d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary within the same corporation.
If
within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer
envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC
within the same period, the agricultural land of the corporate owners or
corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this Act.
As the PARC has the power and authority to approve the SDP,
it also has, by implication, the power to revoke the approval of the plan
unless this implied power is expressly, or by a contrary implication, withheld
from it by law. This conclusion is
consistent with the Courts ruling in Francisco I. Chavez v. National Housing Authority, et al.:[56]
Basic
in administrative law is the doctrine that a government agency or office has
express and implied powers based on its charter and other pertinent
statutes. Express powers are those powers granted, allocated, and
delegated to a government agency or office by express provisions of law.
On the other hand, implied powers are those that can be inferred or are
implicit in the wordings of the law or conferred by necessary
or fair implication in the enabling act. In Angara
v. Electoral Commission, the Court clarified and stressed that when a general grant of power is conferred
or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one
or the performance of the other is also conferred by necessary implication. It was also explicated that when the statute
does not specify the particular method to be followed or used by a government
agency in the exercise of the power vested in it by law, said agency has the
authority to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions.
While the provision does not specify who has the authority to
revoke the approval of the stock distribution plan, logic dictates that the
PARC be the proper body to exercise this authority. If the approval was at the
highest level (i.e., at the level of the PARC), revocation cannot be at
any other level; otherwise, the absurd situation of a lower level of authority
revoking the action of a higher level will result.
In line with the power granted to the
PARC and the DAR to issue rules and regulations to carry out the objectives of
the CARL,[57] the DAR
issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 10-1988 or the Guidelines and Procedures
for Corporate Landowners Desiring to Avail Themselves of the Stock Distribution
Plan Under Section 31 of R.A. 6657 and Superseding Department of Agrarian
Reform Administrative Order No. 4-1987.
The pertinent provisions of the guidelines provide:
Section 10. Disposition of Proposal After the evaluation of the stock distribution plan submitted by the corporate landowner-applicant to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, he shall forward the same with all the supporting documents to the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), through its Executive Committee, with his recommendation for final action.
Section 11. Implementation Monitoring of Plan The approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant of the approval thereof by the PARC and the transfer of the shares of stocks in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded in the stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation of the stock distribution plan.
Upon completion, the corporate landowner-applicant shall be issued a Certificate of Compliance. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his designated representatives shall strictly monitor the implementation to determine whether or not there has been compliance with the approved stock distribution plan as well as the requirements of the CARP. For this purpose, the corporate landowner-applicant shall make available its premises for ocular inspection, its personnel for interview, and its records for examination at normal business hours.
Section 12. Revocation of Certificate of Compliance Non-compliance with any of the requirements of Section 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by this Implementing Guidelines shall be grounds for the revocation of the Certificate of Compliance issued to the corporate landowner-applicant.
Section 13. Reservation Clause Nothing herein shall be construed as precluding the PARC from making its own independent evaluation and assessment of the stock distribution plan of the corporate landowner-applicant and in prescribing other requirements.
Thus, the corporate landowner is
obliged under Section 11 of this AO to implement the SDP within three months
after the plan is approved by the PARC.
A Certificate of Compliance follows the execution of the SDP to confirm
its compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. Compliance, however, is not a one-time
determination; even after the approval of the SDP, the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, or his designated representatives, is under the obligation to strictly
monitor the implementation of the SDP to ensure continuing compliance with the
statutory (the CARL) and regulatory (the AO) requirements.
Section 12 of the AO confirms that
the Certificate of Compliance can still be revoked even after its issuance, if
the corporate landowner is found violating the requirements of Section 31 of
the CARL. If this authority is granted after
the corporate landowner has been issued a Certificate of Compliance, with more
reason should the approval of the SDP be subject to revocation prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance.
At that prior point, the PARC has not even accepted and approved
compliance with the SDP as legally satisfactory. While the rules do not
expressly designate the PARC as the entity with the authority to revoke, the
PARC nevertheless is granted the continuing authority, under Section 18 of EO
No. 229, to implement the policies, rules and regulations necessary to
implement each component of the CARP.
This grant is a catch-all authority intended to cover all the implicit
powers that the express grants do not specifically state, and must necessarily
include the power of revocation.
IV.
The SDP is null and void for being contrary to law
Along with my colleagues, I consider
HLIs SDP/SDOA to be null and void because its terms are contrary to law. I specifically refer to two main points of
invalidity. First is the man days method the SDP/SDOA adopted in computing the number of shares
each FWB is entitled to get; and second
is the extended period granted to HLI to complete the distribution of the
118,391,976.85 shares, which violates the compliance periods provided under
Section 11 of AO No. 10-1988.
Under the SDOA/SDP, the qualified
FWBs will receive, at the end of every fiscal year, HLI shares based on the number of days that they worked
for HLI during the year. This scheme runs counter to Section 4 of
the DAR AO No. 10-1988, which states:
Section 4. Stock Distribution Plan. The stock distribution plan submitted by the corporate-landowner applicant shall provide for the distribution of an equal number of shares of stock of the same class and value, with the same rights and features as all other shares, to each of the qualified beneficiaries. This distribution plan in all cases, shall be at least the minimum ration for purposes of compliance with Section 31 of RA 6657.
On top of the minimum ration provided under Section 3 of this Implementing Guideline, corporate landowner-applicant may adopt additional stock distribution schemes taking into account factors such as rank, seniority, salary, position and other circumstances which may be deemed desirable as a matter of sound company policy.
The man days method of determining
the shares to be distributed to each FWB is contrary to the mandate to
distribute equal number of shares to each FWB, and is not saved by the
prerogative of the landowner to adopt distribution schemes based on factors
desirable as a matter of sound company policy. The man days method leaves it
entirely to the unregulated will of HLI, as the employer, to determine the
number of workers and their working hours, that in turn becomes the basis in
computing the shares to be distributed to each worker. The workers earn shares depending on whether
they were called to work under an uncertain work schedule that HLI wholly
determines. Under this set-up, intervening events that interrupt work and
that are wholly dictated by HLI, effectively lessen the shares of stocks that a
worker earns. This is far from the
part-ownership of the company at a given point in time that the CARL and its
implementing rules envisioned.
The 30-year distribution period, on the other hand, violates the three
month period that Section 11 of AO No. 10-1988 prescribes in the implementation
of the distribution scheme:
Section 11 Implementation Monitoring of Plan The approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant of the approval thereof by the PARC and the transfer of the shares of stocks in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded in the stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation of the stock distribution plan.
Contrary to this provision, the HLIs
SDP/SDOA authorized a slow incremental distribution of shares over a 30-year
period. Thus, FWB participation,
particularly over the early years, was minimal and the unearned and
undistributed shares remained with HLI. This scheme totally runs counter to the
concept of making the FWBs part-owners, through their stock participation,
within the time that Section 11 requires for the implementation of the stock
distribution scheme. Stated more
bluntly, the FWBs largely remained farmers while the land supposedly subject to
land reform remained with HLI.
These SDP provisions, among others,
prejudiced the FWBs and denied them of their rights under the law. Consequently, PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01
is legally correct in revoking the SDP of HLI.[58]
The recall/revocation of the SDP
carried with it the revocation of the SDOA, since the two are essentially the
same. The SDOA is the contract between
the FWBs and the landowners (HLI/Tadeco) that was embodied and made
the very core of the SDP the proposal submitted by HLI for the PARCs
approval as compliance with the CARL.
The illegality that permeates the SDP (leading to PARCs decision to
revoke it) therefore also extends to the SDOA.
If we recognize that the SDP is different from the SDOA, as the ponencia suggests, inconsistency and
absurdity would result.
a. Consequnces of the
Revocation of SDP/SDOA
The revocation of the SDP/SDOA carries two significant
consequences.
The first is the compulsory coverage of
HLI agricultural lands by the CARP, as the PARC ordered through its Notice of
Coverage. This coverage should cover the
whole 4,915.75 hectares of land subject of the SDOA, including the 500 hectares
later sold to LIPCO, RCBC and the LRC, and the 80 hectares purchased by the government
as part of the SCTEX. As discussed
below, the implementation of this coverage should be subject to the validity of
the subsequent dealings involving specific parcels of the covered land.
The second is the invalidity from the
very beginning of the SDP/SDOA, both in its terms and in its
implementation. Thus, mutual restitution should take place, i.e., the parties are bound to return to
each other what they received on account of the nullified SDP/SDOA. It is on this latter point that I diverge
from the majoritys ruling on the effects of the nullification of the
SDP/SDOA.
These consequences are
separately discussed below.
b. The compulsory CARP coverage
and extent of Notice of Coverage.
b. 1. Basis of the compulsory CARP coverage
Section 31 is clear and categorical on
the consequence of the revocation the agricultural land of the corporate
owners or corporation shall be subject to compulsory coverage under the
CARL. The DAR AO No. 10-1988 effectively
defines the corporate land covered the
land actually devoted to agriculture as this is the basis for the
allocation of shares to FWBs. Thus, as
discussed below, compulsory coverage upon the failure of the stock distribution
plan shall extend to the whole of HLIs agricultural lands, subject only to
exceptional exclusions that may be recognized.
b.2.
Exclusion from Notice of Coverage based on intervening developments
A seeming problem, in light of the
intervening conversion to industrial use and the sale of 500 hectares of
converted land to third parties, is the extent of actual implementation of PARCs Notice of
Coverage.
As narrated above, HLI applied for
the conversion to industrial use of 500 hectares of the original 4,915.75 that
the SDOA covered. Significantly, the application was made with the consent and approval
of the FWBs, as expressed in their Manifestation of Support.[59]
That the landowner and/or the FWBs can request for conversion is a possibility
that the law made allowance for. Section
65 of the CARL in this regard states:
Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application, of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition; provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid its obligation.
The fact of conversion in the present
case, however, is not a divisive issue between HLI and the FWBs as the latter
consented to and accepted the conversion; they only question their share in the
proceeds after the converted lands were sold to third parties. If at all, conversion as an issue rears its
head between the PARC and HLI because of the intervening sale of the converted
lands and the PARCs Notice of Coverage that, given the invalidity of the
SDOA/SDP, should be effective on
In these lights, the validity of the
transfer of the converted lands to LIPCO, RCBC, LRC (through Centennary) and
SCTEX, depends on the validity of the transfers made and on how they are
affected by the agrarian character and the FWB ownership of the transferred
lands; the validity of the conversion is a given or is at least a non-material
consideration.
As the undisputed facts show, the converted lands are titled
properties that the purchasers LIPCO, RCBC and the government acquired in a
series of documented and fully examined transactions. In these dealings, a significant
consideration is the good faith of the purchasers who, in the usual course, can
rely on the presented certificate of title, subject only to the requirements of
good faith.[61]
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or an
interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the property at
the time of purchase, or before
he has notice of some other persons claim or interest in the property.[62] The law requires, on the part of the buyer,
lack of notice of a defect in the title
of the seller, and payment in full of the fair price at the time of the sale or
prior to having notice of any defect in the sellers title.[63]
Every registered owner and every subsequent purchaser for
value in good faith holds the title to the property free from all encumbrances
except those noted in the certificate.
Hence, a purchaser is not required to explore further than what the
To determine whether LIPCO was a
purchaser in good faith, I examined the certificate of title of Centennary
Holdings, Inc. at the time of LIPCOs purchase.[66]
Notably, the only annotations and/or restrictions in the title were (a) the
Secretarys Certificate in favor of Teresita Lopa and Shintaro Murai;[67]
(b) the sale in favor of LIPCO for P750 million;[68]
and (c) the conversion of the property from agricultural to industrial and
residential use.[69]
None of these annotations suggests any defect in Centennarys title, nor do
they place potential buyers on notice that some other person had a claim or
interest in the property.
While LIPCO may have known that the
property it was purchasing was covered by an SDOA between HLI and its FWBs, the
coverage, by itself, is not enough to constitute bad faith on LIPCOs
part. The property LIPCO purchased was
covered by a validly issued DAR Conversion Order, which served to assure LIPCO
that the property it was purchasing had already been approved for sale and
industrial development, and thus already lies outside CARP coverage. Reliance on the Conversion Order is
strengthened by the numerous government issuances which all classified these
lands as industrial land to be developed as a Special Economic Zone.[70]
In the case of RCBC, LIPCOs
certificates[71]
covering the parcels transferred to RCBC through a dacion en pago,
contained the following annotations: (a) the Deed of Restrictions;[72]
(b) the Secretarys Certificate in favor of Koji Komai and Kyosuke Nori;[73]
and (c) the Real Estate Mortgage in favor of RCBC, for P300 million.[74]
Again, nothing in these annotations would lead possible buyers or transferees
like RCBC to question LIPCOs right, as owner, to transfer these properties.
I likewise find that RCBC
sufficiently demonstrated extraordinary diligence in purchasing part of the
acquired lands from LIPCO. Before it
acquired these lands, RCBC reviewed and inspected LIPCOs certificates of title
and other relevant documents to trace the origin of LIPCOs titles to ascertain
the nature of the property.[75] It likewise conducted ocular inspections on
the property, and confirmed that the property was not only in LIPCOs
possession; more than this, nobody was occupying the property.[76]
As with LIPCO, the fact that the property had already been converted by the DAR
assured RCBC that the property it was purchasing was no longer agricultural
land and was, therefore, outside CARP coverage.
Aside
from the good faith both LIPCO and RCBC demonstrated, they paid the full and
fair price for their purchases. LIPCO paid Centennary the total amount of P750
million for the 300 hectares of land.[77] Likewise, RCBC received approximately 184
hectares of land from LIPCO in exchange for LIPCOs debt amounting to P431.7
million.[78]
A critical point in these transfers, in light of the
invalidity of the SDOA/SDP, is the consent of the real owners of the
transferred properties the respondent FWBs in the present case. As previously mentioned, their main objection
does not relate to the conversion of the 500 hectares to industrial use;
neither is it on the transfer of the property to LIPCO and RCBC. The thrusts of their objections are clear
from a survey of the pleadings. What the
private respondents strongly object to is the share they received from the
transfers; they argue that they are
entitled to more than the trifling 3% of the proceeds of the sale that HLI gave
them. Thus, the respondent FWBs as the
owners of the converted lands at the time of their transfers because of the
invalidity of the SDOA/SDP and the compulsory CARP coverage of the lands these
instruments cover at the very least gave their consent and ratified the
transfers made. At this point, they only
have to receive the price due them on the transactions so that all the elements
of the sale, viewed as a contract, can be complete.
Not
to be forgotten as an important side consideration, in examining the transfers
to LIPCO and RCBC from the point of view of agrarian reform, is the acquired
lands present state of development; they have already been partially developed
into an industrial estate significant portions have been covered by cemented
roads, and permanent structures have been erected.[79] As RCBC convincingly argued, it would not be
practicable to raze down these permanent structure, and rehabilitate partially
developed non-agricultural land so that it can be used for agricultural
purposes. As a colleague observed, the
DAR Conversion Order[80]
itself notes that the converted lands have no source of irrigation and no new
irrigation facilities, and would have to be developed in these regards in order
to be viable for farming.
Thus, I totally disagree with the PARCs ruling that the portions sold to
RCBC and LIPCO should continue to be included in the CARPs compulsory coverage and should simply be
turned over to the qualified beneficiaries.
Although these lands fell under compulsory CARP coverage even before
their sale to RCBC and LIPCO, the intervening events that gave rise to legally
valid transactions cannot be disregarded in the name of agrarian reform.
Whatever remaining objections there may now be (in this case, the sharing of
the proceeds of the sales) are simply disputes that do not affect the validity
of the underlying transactions, and can be resolved as issues in the present
case.
The land transferred to the
government, for use as part of the SCTEX
has not at all been discussed in the proceedings of the case[81] and
does not appear to have been covered by any conversion order. Presumably, however, the transfer was
pursuant to the governments exercise of the power of eminent domain an overriding act of government that
carries the presumption of regularity unless otherwise proven. I mention this aspect of the HLI properties
because of its potential materiality. In
the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the government must necessarily
pay just compensation to the owner. The
FWBs, as owners at the time of the expropriation because of the lands prior
compulsory coverage under the CARP, should receive the full amount that the
government paid.
The remaining 200 hectares (of the
original 500 hectares converted from agricultural to industrial use with the
DARs approval) appear to be a big gaping black hole in the attendant facts of
this case. They appear to have been sold
by HLI to Luisita Realty.[82]
The latter, however, did not intervene in this case and likewise did not assail
PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01, or the DARs Notice of Coverage order. On the
one hand, this silence and omission may be argued to mean acquiescence with the
PARC decision to place the land under the compulsory CARP coverage. On the other hand, the sale to Luisita Realty
is part and parcel of the series of transactions that, for the reasons given
above, cannot and should not now be questioned if Luisita Realty is similarly
situated as LIPCO and RCBC.
I opt for the latter view and for
giving LRC the full opportunity to present its case before the DAR at the
implementation stage of this Decision. I
reason out that the failure of Luisita Realty to actively intervene at the PARC
level and before this Court does not really affect the intrinsic validity of
the transfer made in its favor if indeed it is similarly situated as LIPCO and
RCBC. Accordingly, a definitive ruling on the transfer of the 200 hectares to
Luisita Realty is now premature to make, and should be referred to the DAR for
its determination.
b.3. HLI is entitled to just compensation based on
the covered lands 1989 value.
Since the land
is subject to compulsory coverage under the CARL, HLI is entitled to just
compensation. For purposes of just
compensation, the taking should be reckoned not from the Court or the PARCs
declaration of nullity of the SDP, but from
To repeat,
The
FWBs should, therefore, be considered as entitled to the ownership of the land
beginning
In determining just compensation, the
DAR should find guidance from Section 17 of the CARL, which states:
Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
Lest the matter of interest on the
compensation due be a delaying feature of the implementation, I maintain that
although HLI is entitled to just compensation based on the lands value in
1989, it cannot be awarded any interest.
Jurisprudence holds that when property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value, to be computed from the time the property is taken up to the time compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.[84]
In the present case, HLI never lost
possession and control of the land under the terms of the SDOA. This is an actual and corporate reality (not
simply a consequence of the void SDOA) that the Court cannot ignore. It is only upon the implementation of this
Courts decision, partially affirming PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 (placing
HLI lands under compulsory coverage of the land acquisition scheme of the
CARL), that HLI will be deprived of its possession. Thus, no interest can be due from the just
compensation that the DAR shall determine.
On the contrary, and as discussed below, HLI should pay rentals to the
FWBs for its continued possession and control of the land from
b.4. The
qualified FWBs are entitled to actual possession of land except the lands
legally transferred to LIPCO, RCBC, and the government
The land subject to agrarian reform
coverage under the terms of the CARL, as ordered by the DAR and confirmed by
the PARC, covers the entire 4,915.75 hectares of agricultural land subject of
the SDOA, including the 300 hectares later sold to LIPCO and RCBC, the 200
hectares sold to Luisita Realty, and the 80 hectares purchased by the
government to form part of the SCTEX. However,
the
FWB ownership, based on agrarian reform coverage, should yield to the sale and
transfer of the acquired lands the 380 hectares sold since these were
validly acquired by LIPCO, RCBC and SCTEX, as discussed above.[85]
Since the sale and transfer of these
acquired lands came after compulsory CARP coverage had taken place, the FWBs are entitled to be paid for the
300 hectares of land transferred to LIPCO based on its value in 1989, not
on the P750 million selling price paid by LIPCO to HLI as proposed by
the ponencia. This outcome recognizes the reality that the
value of these lands increased due to the improvements introduced by HLI,
specifically HLIs move to have these portions reclassified as industrial land
while they were under its possession.[86] Thus,
unless it is proven that the P750 million is equivalent to the value of the
land as of May 11, 1989 and excludes the value of any improvements that may
have been introduced by HLI, I maintain that the lands 1989 value, as
determined by the DAR, should be the price paid to the FWBs for the lands
transferred to LIPCO and RCBC.
On the other hand, the FWBs are entitled to be paid the full
amount of just compensation that HLI received from the government for the 80
hectares of expropriated land forming the SCTEX highway. What was transferred in this case was a
portion of the HLI property that was not covered by any conversion order. The transfer, too, came after compulsory CARP
coverage had taken place and without any significant intervention from
HLI. Thus, the whole of the just
compensation paid by the government should accrue solely to the FWBs as
owners.
I note that complications may arise
in adjusting the parties relationships with respect to the sale of the
acquired lands, as another party the Land Bank of the
b.5. HLI
must pay the qualified FWBs yearly rent for the use of the land from 1989
Since land reform coverage and the
right to the transfer of the CARL-covered lands accrued to the FWBs as of May
11, 1989, HLI which continued to
possess and to control the covered land should pay the qualified FWBs yearly
rental for the use and possession of the covered land up to the time HLI
surrenders possession and control over these lands.[89] As a detail of land reform implementation,
the authority to determine the appropriate rentals belongs to the DAR, using
established norms and standards for the purpose. Proper adjustment, of course, should be made
for the sale of the acquired lands to LIPCO and to the government as no rentals
can be due for these portions after their sale.
The ponencia objects to the imposition of rental fee on HLI:
[T]he income earned by the corporation
from its possession and use of the land ultimately redounded to the benefit of
the FWBs based on its business operations in the form of salaries, benefits
voluntarily granted by HLI and other fringe benefits under the CBA. There would be double compensation if HLI is
still required to pay rent for the use of the land in question.[90]
The objections logic,
unfortunately, is flawed. That the FWBs, as owners of the land, are entitled to
rent for HLIs possession and use does not preclude them from receiving
salaries and benefits for work they performed on the land for HLI. To put it simply, the FWBs are entitled to
the rent as owners of the land, and to the salaries and benefits as employees
of HLI which had control and possession of the land and which conducted
business operations based on the control and possession it enjoyed.
Parenthetically and considering the
lapse of more than 10 years from the taking of the Hacienda Luisita, I bring to the parties attention Section 27 of
the CARL which authorizes the FWBs to sell the lands acquired by them under the
CARP:
SEC. 27. Transferability
of Awarded Lands. - Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or
to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided,
however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right
to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2)
years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to
the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is
situated. The Provincial Agrarian Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by
the beneficiary, the right to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior
approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land
himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP
which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner
specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the
latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the
latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on
the land.
Under this provision, the qualified
FWBs who are no longer interested in owning their proportionate share of the
land may opt to sell it to LBP, who in turn can sell it to HLI and LRC, in order
not to disrupt their existing operations.
The Court leaves it to the parties to avail of Section 27 in the process
of adjusting and settling their claims.
b.6. The DAR must identify the qualified FWBs
As a last point on compulsory CARP
coverage, the beneficiaries who deserve to participate in the distribution of
HLI land should be those qualified as of
Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farm workers;
(c) seasonal farm workers;
(d) other farm workers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
This question is for the DAR to
resolve and is without prejudice to agreements the HLI and the FWBs may arrive
at before the DAR. As a starting point,
the DAR should use the list of qualified FWBs that Tadeco applied in 1989 when
it sought the approval of its SDP.
c. Consequences of SDOA/SDP
Invalidity.
c.1. The Operative Fact Doctrine is not applicable
While the ponencia affirms the revocation of the SDP, it declares that it
cannot close its eyes to certain operative
facts that had occurred in the interim [the period between PARCs approval
of the SDP up to its revocation]. x x x the revocation must, however, give way
to the right of the original 6,296 qualified FWBs to choose whether they want
to remain as HLI stockholders or
not. The Court cannot turn a blind eye
to the fact that in 1989, 93% of the FWBs agreed to the SDOA (also styled as
the MOA) which became the basis of the SDP approved by PARC x x x. The ponencia
justifies the application of the operative fact doctrine, since
the operative fact principle applies to a law or an executive action, the application of the doctrine to the
[nullification of] PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 which is an executive action is
correct.[91]
The ponencias view proceeds from a misinterpretation of the term
executive action to which the operative fact doctrine may be applied.[92]
The operative fact doctrine applies
in considering the effects of a declaration
of unconstitutionality of a statute
or a rule issued by the Executive Department that is accorded the same status
as a statute. The
executive action, in short, refers to those issuances promulgated by the
Executive Department pursuant to their quasi-legislative or rule-making
powers. Its meaning cannot be expanded
to cover just about any act performed by the Executive Department, as that
would be to negate the rationale behind the doctrine.
Aside
from being a principle of equity, the Court is also keenly aware that an
underlying reason for the application of the operative fact doctrine is the
presumption of constitutionality that statutes carry. Rules and regulations
promulgated in pursuance of the authority conferred upon the administrative
agency by law, partake of the nature of a statute and similarly enjoy the
presumption of constitutionality.[93] Thus, it is only to this kind of executive
action that the operative fact doctrine
can apply.[94]
The SDOA/SDP is neither a statute nor
an executive issuance but, as mentioned, is a contract between the FWBs and the
landowners. A contract stands on a different plane than a statute or an executive
issuance. When a contract is contrary to law, it is deemed void ab initio. It produces no legal effects whatsoever, in
accordance with the principle quo nullum
est nullum producit effectum.[95] Contracts do not carry any presumption of constitutionality
or legality that those observing the law rely upon. For this reason, the operative fact doctrine
applies only to a declaration of unconstitutionality of a statute or an
executive rulemaking issuance, conferring legitimacy upon past acts or
omissions done in reliance thereof prior to the declaration of its invalidity;[96]
the statute or the executive issuance, before its invalidity, was an operative
fact to which legal consequences attached.
To extend this same principle to an
unconstitutional or illegal contract would be to invite chaos into our legal
system. It will make the parties a law
unto themselves, allowing them to enter into contracts whose effects will
anyway be recognized as legal even if the contracts are subsequently voided by
the courts. From this perspective, the
operative fact doctrine that applies to unconstitutional statutes is clearly
not relevant to the present case.
Furthermore, I see no reason to allow
the FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI; maintaining that stock ownership
goes against the CARLs declared policy of making the welfare of the farmers
and the farmworker the highest consideration, not to mention that the direct
constitutional mandate is land ownership by farmers-tillers, not stock
ownership in a landowning corporation. To remain as stockholders of an
almost-bankrupt corporation certainly will not afford the FWBs the opportunity
to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives.[97] By the HLIs own admission, it shut down its
operations in 2004; its audited financial statements as of December 31, 2007
and December 31, 2008 reflect a capital deficiency of P1.1 billion and P1.63
billion, respectively.
c.2. FWBs
must return to HLI the benefits they actually received by virtue of the SDOA
The nullity of a contract
goes into its very existence, and the parties to it must generally revert back
to their respective situations prior to its execution; restitution is,
therefore, in order. With the SDP being void and without effect,
the FWBs should return everything they are proven to have received pursuant to
the terms of the SDOA/SDP, and these include:
1.
the
59 million shares of stock of HLI distributed for free;
2.
the P150 million representing 3% of the
gross sales of the production of the agricultural lands;
3.
the
P37.5 million representing 3% of the proceeds from the sale of the 500
hectares of agricultural land (including what may have been received from the
expropriation by government of the land used for SCTEX); and
4.
the
240 sqm. homelots distributed for free to each of the 3,274 families of FWBs.[98]
I observe that these are grants that
HLI claimed, but have not proven, to have been fully received by the grantees;
the evidence on record fails to show that all the FWBs under the SDOA equally
received their allotted shares.
During the oral arguments on August
18, 2010, the Court instructed Atty. Gener Asuncion of HLI to submit proof
that: (a) HLI gave the 3% share in HLIs total gross sales of the products of
the land that the FWBs were entitled to, from 1989 up to 2004, when HLI ceased
operations; and (b) HLI distributed the home lots to the FWBs. The records do not show any compliance with
the Courts directive as HLI failed to submit any document proving compliance.
At most, the records only contain the Hacienda Luisita, Inc. Salaries,
Benefits and Credit Privileges (in Thousand Pesos) Since the Stock Option was
Approved by PARC/CARP,[99]
which provided that HLI gave the FWBs a total of P150 million as the 3%
production share from 1989 to 2005.
Weighing the findings in the DAR
Memorandum, dated September 30, 2005, (as affirmed by the PARC) that HLI only partially complied with its obligation
to provide the FWBs with the 3% production share, against HLIs self-serving allegation
that it fully complied with this obligation, I find insufficient basis to
conclude (as the ponencia does) that HLI had complied substantially
with this SDOA undertaking and the conversion order.[100]
No substantial proof likewise exists
that the FWBs who qualified under the SDOA, received the home lots that HLI
claims it distributed. In the same
manner, although HLI alleged that it also distributed 3% of the P80
million paid for the 80 hectares of land used by the SCTEX complex, no evidence in the records supports this
assertion.
All these are aspects of
implementation that are up to the DAR to ascertain if the Court will decide on starting
with a clean slate reckoned from 1989 by decreeing that compulsory CARP
coverage should start at that point in time, and proceeding to adjust the
relations of the parties with due regard to the events that intervened. A consideration starting from a clean slate
requires the accounting and restitution of what the parties received, or are
due to receive, from one another.
I point out the above deficiencies as
they involve factual questions that will be material in the clean slate
approach I mentioned above. I point out,
however, that whatever restitutions may have to be made in a clean
slate approach, the FWBs who worked for HLI should retain the P3
billion given to them as salaries and wages, and any other benefit they may
have received as employees of HLI. They received these sums as wages and
compensation earned for services rendered, and these are no longer subject to
question.
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I vote to DENY the petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc.s petition, and AFFIRM public respondent PARCs
Resolution No. 2005-32-01 revoking the SDP, as well as its Resolution No.
2006-34-01 denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The decision to subject the land to compulsory agrarian
reform coverage should be AFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that while the
acquired lands were included by the public respondent Department of Agrarian
Reform in its Notice of Compulsory Coverage, the purchase by the
petitioners-intervenors, as well as the portion of land acquired for the SCTEX
complex, should be recognized as valid and effective. I make no conclusion with
respect to the transfer of 200 hectares to Luisita Realty, Inc., but I
recognize that the validity of the transfer can still be proven, if Luisita
Realty, Inc. so desires, before the DAR. Otherwise, the 200 hectares should be
subject to compulsory CARP coverage.
VI. ORDERS AND DIRECTIVES
The public respondent Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby
ORDERED to implement the Notice of
Compulsory Coverage as soon as possible and to monitor the land distribution to
ensure the equitable distribution of the land to the qualified
farmworkers-beneficiaries. In this
regard, it is ORDERED to:
a)
determine
the amount of just compensation that the petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. is
entitled to for the 4,915.75 hectares of Hacienda
Luisita, based on its value on
b)
determine
the amount of yearly rentals that petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. must pay
the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries, for the use and possession of the land
from 1989, until possession is officially turned over to the Department of
Agrarian Reform for distribution (with due adjustment for the portions sold to
Luisita Industrial Park Corporation, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation and
the government for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway);
c)
identify
the farmworkers-beneficiaries who are qualified to receive land under the
compulsory CARP coverage of the agricultural
d)
determine
the benefits under the void Stock Distribution Option Agreement/Stock
Distribution Plan that the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries actually received from Hacienda Luisita,
Inc.;
e)
settle
the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the parcels of land sold to the
Luisita Industrial Park Corporation and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation,
with the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries participating to the extent of the
value of these parcels of land as of
f)
settle
the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the expropriated land to the
government for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway, with the qualified
farmworkers-beneficiaries entitled to all the proceeds that Hacienda Luisita,
Inc. received for this transaction;
g)
settle
the claims and obligations arising from the Courts Decision, taking into
account that the Land Bank of the Philippines is the party mandated by law to
advance the payment of the land taken for agrarian reform purposes; and
h)
provide
the Luisita Realty, Inc. the opportunity to present evidence, with notice to
all the parties to this case, to prove the validity of the transfer of 200
hectares of converted land by Hacienda Luisita, Inc.
In adjusting the parties rights, claims and obligations to
one another based on the rulings, guidelines and parameters of this Courts
Decision, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall take advantage of the
principle of set-off or compensation under the Civil Code of the Philippines,
whenever applicable; shall employ mediation and conciliation techniques,
whenever possible; shall apply Section 27 of the CARL, if possible; and shall
cause the least disturbance to the status
quo, particularly in the restitution of the home lots previously distributed
under the nullified Stock Distribution Option Agreement/Stock Distribution
Plan.
The Department of Agrarian
Reform shall submit quarterly reports of its implementation efforts to this
Court starting at the end of the second quarter after the finality of the
Courts Decision, until the case is considered fully closed and terminated.
II. TO THE QUALIFIED FWBs UNDER THE VOIDED SDOA
Those who qualified as farmworkers-beneficiaries under the nullified
Stock Distribution Option Agreement/Stock Distribution Plan and who,
accordingly, received shares of stocks and benefits under this Agreement/Plan
are ORDERED to return, the following
for purposes of accounting, compensation, or off-setting with amounts due from
HLI, in accordance with the DARs final implementation resolution:
a)
the
59 million shares of stock of the petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc.; otherwise,
these shares of stocks can simply be considered cancelled or reverted back to
Hacienda Luisita, Inc.;
b)
the
P150 million, representing 3% of the gross sales of the production of
the agricultural lands;
c)
the
P37.5 million, representing 3% of the proceeds from the sale of the 300
hectares of agricultural land; and
d)
the
240 sqm. home lots distributed for free to each of the 3,274 families of the
farmworkers-beneficiaries.
III. TO HACIENDA LUISITA, INC.
The petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. is ORDERED to:
a)
surrender
possession of the 4,535.75 hectares of land subject to compulsory coverage under
RA 6657, to the Department of Agrarian Reform (i.e., including the 200 hectares transferred to Luisita Realty that
the Department of Agrarian Reform /Presidential Agrarian Reform Council did not
recognize), subject to the opportunity granted under this Decision to Luisita
Realty Corporation to prove its ownership.
b)
pay
the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries, as determined by the Department of
Agrarian Reform, the value of the 300 hectares of land transferred to Luisita
Industrial Park Corporation and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, based on
the May 11, 1989 value as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform; this
same directive applies with respect to the 200 hectares transferred to Luisita
Realty, Inc., when and if the Department of Agrarian Reform finds the sale of
the property valid; otherwise, the 200 hectares shall fall under the PARCs
Notice of Coverage;
c)
pay
the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries, as determined by the Department of Agrarian
Reform, the just compensation it received from the government for the 80
hectares of expropriated land used for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway; and
d)
pay
the qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries yearly rental for the use of the land
(except for the portions already transferred to Luisita Industrial Park
Corporation, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation and Subic-Clark-Tarlac
Expressway) from 1989 until the land is turned over to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, based on the value as determined by the Department of Agrarian
Reform.
They are entitled to RETAIN
the salaries, wages and other benefits they received as employees of the
petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc.
Submitted for the En Bancs consideration.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 3044.
[2] Id. at 3809.
[3] Id. at 3645.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Resolution No. 280
dated
[19] Rollo, Volume 3, p. 4229.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] Rollo, pp. 340-342.
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35] Rollo, pp.407-425.
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] The Mediation Panel is
composed of former Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, as
Chairperson, and former CA Justices Hector Hofilena and Teresita Dy-Liacco
Flores as members. rollo, Volume 3,
pp. 3060-3062.
[40] Rollo, Volume 3, pp. 3694-3695.
[41] The parties submitted
the following pleadings:
a) Petitioner HLIs Memorandum dated
b) Memorandum dated
c) Memorandum dated
d) Memorandum dated
e) Memorandum dated
f)
Petitioner-Intervenor
LIPCOs
g) Petitioner-Intervenor RCBCs
[42] HLI Memorandum, p.
73.
[43] Ibid.
[44] G.R. No. 131457,
[45] HLI states that it
has only 337 permanent farmworkers, of the 10,502 FWBs; HLI Memorandum, p. 74.
[46]Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. - The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farm workers;
(c) seasonal farm workers;
(d) other farm workers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; and: Provided, further, that actual tenant -tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under their program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.
If, due to landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
Farmers
already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of
privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of
lands from the public domain.
[47] RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Section 2.
[48] People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 89 (1937).
[49] Rollo, p. 149.
[50] Supra note 44.
[51] Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 133.
[52] Spouses Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, G. R. No.
167011,
[53] See Garcia v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 157584,
[54] Arceta v. Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895,
[55] This law, entitled
An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP),
extending the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands,
instituting necessary reforms, amending for the purpose certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988, as amended, and appropriating funds therefore, amended the CARL by removing the stock distribution option as a mode of compliance with
the agrarian reform program.
[56] G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 295-296.
[57] Section 49 of the CARL states: The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
[58] Rollo, p. 101.
[59] Supra note 15.
[60] See Ros v. CA, G.R. No.
132477, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 471 and Alarcon
v. CA, 453 Phil. 373 (2003).
[61] See Republic v. Orfinada, Sr., G.R. No.
141145,
[62] Centeno v. Spouses Viray, 440 Phil. 881, 885 (2002).
[63] De
[64] PNB v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71753, August 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 736.
[65] Cabuhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122425,
[66] Rollo, pp. 3375-3376.
[67] E-38-18798; Kind: Secretarys Certificate in
favor of Teresita C. Lopa. Cond: By virtue of which Teresita C. Lopa is hereby
authorized and empowered to sign, execute and deliver whatever deeds,
agreements and other documents as may be necessary to consummate the sale for
and in behalf of the corporation, as per Doc. No. 271; p-56; bk. III; s-1997 of
Not. Pub. A.M. Lopez.
Date
of instrument
Date
of inscription
GUERRERO
E-38-18799; Kind: Secretarys Certificate
in favor of Shintaro Murai. Cond: By virtue of which Shintaro Murai is hereby
authorized to sign, execute and delivery the Deed of Absolute Sale and whatever
deeds and agreements, and other documents, as may be necessary to consummate
the said Deed of Absolute Sale for and in behalf of the corporation, as per
Doc. No. 277; p-51; bk. III; s-1997 of Not. Pub. A.M. Lopez.
Date
of instrument
Date
of inscription
[68] E-38-18800:
Kind: P750,000,000.00)
and in lieu thereof TCT 310986 is issued on page 186 Vol. T-1546 as per Doc.
No. 22; p-6; bk. II; s-1998 of Not. Pub. E.C. Dela Merced Jr.
Date
of instrument
Date
of inscription
[69] E-38-18805:
Kind: Order. in favor of Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated, rep. by Mr. Pedro
Cojuangco. Cond: By virtue of an order of DAR Quezon City, the herein property
is hereby converted from Agricultural to Industrial and residential uses.
Date of instrument
Date of inscription
[70] These government issuances include:
a. Resolution No. 392, dated December 11, 1996, of the Sanguniang Barangay of Municipality of Tarlac, recognizing LIPCOs plan to establish a 300 hectare industrial estate in the municipality of Tarlac (Rollo, Volume 3, p. 3377);
b. Board of Investments (BOI) Certificate of Registration No. 96-020 dated December 20, 1996, recognizing LIPCO as duly registered with the BOI (Id. at 3384);
c. Resolution No. 97-202 issued by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), approving LIPCOs application as a mixed economic zone, as well as proclaiming the 300 hectares as a special economic zone to be known as Luisita Industrial Park 2 (Id. at 3385-3388);
d.
Certificate of Registration
No. 00794 issued by the HLURB, recognizing the Luisita Industrial Park 2
project as an industrial subdivision
(Id. at 3398);
and
e.
Presidential Proclamation No.
1207 issued by President Ramos, declaring the 300 hectares of the converted industrial land as a Special
Economic Zone (Id. at
3400-3402).
[71] Rollo, pp. 3475-3482.
[72] Both TCT Nos. 365800 and 365801 contained the
following annotation:
-conditions-
1. USE AND OCCUPANCY
1.1
The
Property and its improvements shall be used solely as an industrial estate for
non-polluting, general, industrial and manufacturing activities provided that
such activities are confined within a [the] buildings and do not pollute,
contaminate or contribute noxious fumes, smoke or dust, offensive odor,
disturbing noise or vibration, and excessive heat to the surrounding
environment nor contain a hazard potential due to the nature of the products,
materials or processes involved, nor discharge any and all other pollutants and
substances which may contaminate the air, the water, the soil and the
environment.
1.2
Without
the prior written consent of Hacienda Luisita, Inc., the Property or any part
thereof shall not be used as an open field depot or dump for depositing and/or
sale of unreconditioned, unassembled and/or unremodelled surplus vehicles,
machineries, equipment or scrap and or any other unreconditioned or unprocessed
second hand materials, goods or items, dormitory or for residential purposes,
vegetables/fruit plantation, experimental farms such as fishponds, and the
establishment of residential projects, commercial establishments including
hotel, shopping mall, retail establishment, food stores, and other uses other
than mentioned in 1.1 above.
2. SEWER The developer
is required to build a water and sewerage treatment plant for both domestic and
industrial water for factories of the industrial park.
3. DRAINAGE all
drainage system shall comply with the drainage mater plan of Hacienda Luisita, Inc.
Storm water shall drain into existing drainage main lines. All industrial or
factory waste or by products harmful to living matters, having an obnoxious
odor, and/or detrimental to the proper maintenance of the river, should first
be primarily treated according to government regulations before.
4. GAS STATIONS/FUEL
PUMPS No gas stations or fuel pumps to service the general public shall be
constructed, operated or established within the industrial park.
5. ADVERTISING SIGNS
Advertising signs shall conform with the aesthetic appearance of the estate. It
shall be limited to those necessary for the business carried on within the
property and shall be the least obnoxious in character and design.
6. POWER PLANT No
electric generating power plant shall be established on the Property without
the prior written consent of Hacienda Luisita, Inc., which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld:
7. TERM AND ENFORCEMENT
OF RESTRICTIONS The restriction, easements and reservation mentioned
hereinabove shall be valid and run with the land for a period of 50 years from
31 Jan. 1988 and compliance thereto may be enforced by court action either by
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. or by any property owner in the industrial estate or
both, as well as by their respective successors and assigns, provided, however,
that public utility or service entities may enforce their easement rights as
provided for herein independently of any other party or parties.
[73] E-42-3728; Kind: SECRETARYS CERTIFICATE. in
favor of KOJI KOMAI and KYOSUKE HORI. Cond. By virtue of which, KOJI KOMAI and
KYOSUKE HORI are hereby authorized and empowered to sign, for and in behalf of
the Corporation and subject to all other conditions specified in Doc. No. 391;
p-80; bk. III; s-1999 of Not. Pub. EUFROCINO C. DELA
Date of instrument
Date of inscription
[74] E-42-3729; Kind: REAL
ESTATE MORTGAGE (REM) In favor of RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION (RCBC).
Cond. The property herein described is hereby Mortgaged to guarantee the
payment for the sum of THREE HUNDRED MILLION (P300,000,000.00) Pesos,
Phil. Currency with interest thereon and subject to all other conditions
specified in Doc. No. 254; p-52; bk. 18; s-1998 of Not. Pub. JEROME O. SARTE,
of
Date of instrument
Date of inscription
[75] Rollo, p. 4262.
[76] Id. at 4264.
[77]
[78]
[79] See RCBSs Memorandum
dated
[80] Rollo, pp. 656-657.
[81] Although HLI asserts that it distributed 3% of the P80 Million
that the government paid for the land used for the SCTEX.
[82] Rollo, Volume 3, pp. 3753-3758.
[83] Section
31 of the CARL provides:
x x x Corporations
or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock,
equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified
beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the
provisions of this Act.
[84] Apo Fruits Corporation v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 164195, October 12,
2010, citing Republic v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, 383
SCRA 611.
[85] With respect to the 80 hectares acquired for the
SCTEX, note that these were acquired by the government so
that the acquisition carries the presumption of regularity.
[86] Rollo, pp. 651-664.
[87] Section 64 of the CARL provides:
Section 64. Financial Intermediary for the CARP.
- The Land Bank of the
[88] Legal
compensation is grounded on the Civil Code of the
Article 1278. Compensation shall
take place when two persons, in their own right, are creditors and debtors of
each other.
Article 1279. In order that
compensation may be proper, it is necessary:
(1) That each one of the obligors
be bound principally, and that he be at the same time a principal creditor of
the other;
(2) That both debts consist in a
sum of money, or if the things due are consumable, they be of the same kind, and
also of the same quality if the latter has been stated;
(3) That the two debts be due;
(4) That they be liquidated and
demandable;
(5) That over neither of them
there be any retention or controversy, commenced by third persons and
communicated in due time to the debtor.
[89] Art. 448. The
owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good
faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or
to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and
the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be
obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the
building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of
the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper
indemnity.
The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the
terms thereof. (361a)
x
x x
Art. 546. Necessary
expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good
faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good
faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of
refunding the amount of the expenses or
of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.
[90] J. Velascos Reply, pp. 4-5.
[91] Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.s Reply to Separate Opinion of Chief Justice Renato Corona, Reflections (Concurring and Dissenting) of Justice Arturo D. Brion, and Reflections of Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Serreno, p. 4.
[92] See Francisco I. Chavez v. National Housing
Authority, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235; De Agbayani v. Philippine National Bank,
No. L-231127,
[93] Ruben E. Agpalo, Administrative Law, Law on Public Officers and Election Law (2005 ed.), p. 57, citing People v. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977).
[94] Hardly was there an instance that the Court applied the operative
fact doctrine in considering the effects of nullifying an executive act done not
pursuant to the exercise of quasi-legislative power. Majority of the cases found the doctrine
applicable in considering the effects of a declaration of unconstitutionality
of a statute or an administrative issuance. See the cases of Corominas, Jr. v. Labor Standards Commission,
No. L-14837,
[95] 3 Castan, 7th ed., p. 409, as cited in D. Jurado, Comments and Jurisprudence on Obligations and Contracts (2002 ed.), p. 570.
[96] See Chavez v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007, 530 SCRA 235, 333, citing City of Makati v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 131392, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 248, 257.
[97] CARL, Section 2 Declaration of Principles and Policies.
[98] Rollo, pp. 3694-3695.
[99] Id. at 3760-3761.
[100] Ponencia, p. 63.