Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, et al. G.R. No.

171101 April 24, 2012 EN BANC; VELASCO, JR., J.: FACTS: Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the Tabacalera. This was sold to Central Azucarera de Tarlac in 1957, then, it was acquired by Jose Cojuangco, Sr., through the Tarlac Development Corportaion (TADECO) in 1958. This was with the help of the Philippine government by providing Central Bank support to obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturers Trust Company (MTC) in New York. 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 with a view to distributing it to small farmers. In 1980, the Marcos government sought to compel TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform for its distribution to the farmers, for which TADECO was then ordered to surrender Hacienda Luisita. In 1988, Corazon Aquino signed into law the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which included a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO). This did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller. To materialize the SDO, the Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) was established. In 2005, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) ordered the revocation of Hacienda Luisitas SDO agreement, as well as the distribution of the haciendas land to all the qualified farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs), through PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01. Then, the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita were placed under compulsory acquisition in view of its failure to perform certain obligations under the Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) on January 2, 2006. HLI filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (SC), assailing said resolution, and oral arguments were conducted in 2010. On July 5, 2011, the SC denied the petition for review filed by HLI and affirmed the assailed PARC Resolutions with the modification that the original 6,296 qualified farmworker-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI. On November 22, 2011, the SC recalled and set aside the option thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI, while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them. Before the SC are the Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011 filed by HLI and the Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification filed by Noel Mallari, et al. ISSUES: 1. Should just compensation be paid? 2. If so, when must the reckoning period be for just compensation? 3. Who should determine just compensation? HELD: FIRST ISSUE In the instant case, the issue on just compensation and the grounds HLI and Mallari, et al. rely upon in support of their respective stance on the matter had been previously raised by them in their first motion for reconsideration and fully passed upon by the Court in its November 22, 2011

Resolution. Considering that the issue on just compensation has already been passed upon and denied by the Court in its November 22, 2011 Resolution, a subsequent motion touching on the same issue undeniably partakes of a second motion for reconsideration, hence, a prohibited pleading, and as such, the motion or plea must be denied. Nonetheless, even if we entertain said motion and examine the arguments raised by HLI and Mallari, et al. one last time, the result will be the same. SECOND ISSUE: In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that the time of taking is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic. It should be noted, however, that taking does not only take place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Taking also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLIs submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval of HLIs stock option plan which should be considered as the effective date of taking as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these lands. Reiterating what We already mentioned in Our November 22, 2011 Resolution, [e]ven if it is the government which will pay the just compensation to HLI, this will also affect the FWBs as they will be paying higher amortizations to the government if the taking will be considered to have taken place only on January 2, 2006. THIRD ISSUE: HLI postulates that just compensation is a question of fact that should be left to the determination by the DAR, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) or even the special agrarian court (SAC). As a matter of fact, the Court, in its November 22, 2011 Resolution, dispositively ordered the DAR and the LBP to determine the compensation due to HLI. Even though the compensation due to HLI will still be preliminarily determined by DAR and LBP, subject to review by the RTC acting as a SAC, the fact that the reckoning point of taking is already fixed at a certain date should already hasten the proceedings and not further cause undue hardship on the parties, especially the qualified FWBs.