CASE TITLE:

Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), petitioner,

Luisita Industrial Park Corp. (LIPCO) and Rizal Commercial Banking
Corporation (RCBC), petitioners-in-intervention,
-versus-
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC); Secretary Nasser
Pangandaman of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); Alyansa ng mga
Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA), Rene Galang, Noel
Mallari, and Julio Suniga and his Supervisory Group of the HLI and Windsor
Andaya, respondents.
G.R. No. 171101. July 5, 2011
CASE:
This case is a SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. This involves
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 with prayer for preliminary
injunctive relief, HLI seeking to question and reverse the PARC Resolutions issued on
December 22, 2005 and May 3, 2006, and the implementing Notice of Coverage dated
January 2, 2006.
FACTS:
In 1955, Land Reform Act [RA 1400] was passed which set the expropriation
of all tenanted estates.
In 1957, the Spanish owners of the Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas
(Tabacalera) sold to Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) Hacienda Luisita
and their controlling interest in the sugar mill within the hacienda, the Central
Azucarera de Tarlac (CAT), to be paid in Philippine pesos and in US dollars.
The Philippine Government, through the Central Bank of the Philippines,
aided the buyer to obtain a dollar loan from a US bank. The GSIS Board of Trustees
extended on November 27, 1957 a PhP 5.911M loan in favour of TADECO to pay
the peso price with a condition under GSIS Resolution No. 3203, later amended by
Resolution No. 356, Series of 1958, which states:
“…the lots comprising 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.”
On March 31, 1958, TADECO had fully paid the purchase price for the
acquisition of Hacienda Luisita.
On August 8, 1963, the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was
enacted, abolishing share tenancy and converting it to leasehold tenancy. It also
created the Land Band of the Philippines (LBP). However, the law’s application was
found to be limited to specific areas in the Central Luzon.
 Subsequently, Congress passed the Code of Agrarian Reform (RA 6389)
declaring the entire country a land reform area and automatically converting tenancy
to leasehold tenancy in all areas and reducing the retention limit from 75 Ha to 7 Ha.
A month after the declaration of Martial Law in September of 1972, President
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 27 which allows tenant-farmers to purchase
the land they tilled or to change from shared-tenancy to fixed-rent leasehold tenancy,
as a way to go about the “emancipation of the tillers from the bondage of the soil”.
On May 7, 1980, the Martial Law Administration filed a suit before the RTC of
Manila against TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform (now the DAR) for its distribution to farmers. The RTC ordered TADECO
to surrender the hacienda to the MAR.
Then during the time of President Corazon C. Aquino, after Marcos was
ousted, Proclamation No. 131, Series of 1987, was issued instituting a CARP.
On July 22, 1987, EO 229 was issued to provide for mechanisms for CARP
implementation. It also created the PARC as its policy-making body.
On March 17, 1988, the OSG moved to withdraw the government’s case
against TADECO, et al.
On May 18, 1988, the CA dismissed the case the Marcos administration initially
instituted and won against TADECO, et al. However, the dismissal was conditioned
that there be an approval of a stock distribution plan (SDP) to be submitted,
approved by PARC, and implemented as an alternative mode of land distribution, and
failure to comply will cause the revival of previous decision.
On June 15, 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA
6657) took effect, providing a new process of land classification, acquisition, and
distribution. This tested the application of the law in the current case of Hacienda
Luisita.
On August 23, 1988, HLI was formed as a spin-off corporation to facilitate the
SDP.
On March 22, 1989, a TADECO, via a Deed of Assignment and Conveyance,
transferred and conveyed to HLI the titles over the lot in question, valued at PhP
196.630,000.00 (33.296% of the total asset of PhP 590,554,220.00). In line with
accommodating such transfer, the HLI increased its capital share to PhP 400,000,000
at PhP1/share, PhP 150,000,000 of which were to be issued only to qualified and
registered beneficiaries of the CARP, and the remaining PhP250,000,000 to any
stockholder of the corporation. (Obviously, the controlling shares of FWBs are lower
in this case.) HLI guaranteed to the qualified beneficiaries of the SDP production-
sharing that “every year they will receive, on top of their regular compensation, an amount that
approximates 3% of the total gross sale from the production of the agricultural land, whether it is in
the form of cash dividends or incentive bonuses or both.” The production sharing is payable
irrespective of whether HLI makes money or not. HLI also assured each family
beneficiary to be guaranteed a homelot of not more than 240 sq. m. in the barrio or
barangay where they reside.
 On May 9, 1989, about 93% of the FWBs accepted and signed the proposed
SDOP.
On May 11, 1989, SDOA was entered into by TADECO/HLI and 5,848
qualified FWBs.
On October 14, 1989, the referendum conducted by DAR showed that 5,177
FWBs out of 5,315 participants opted to receive shares in the HLI (that’s about
97.403575% of the participants), and only 132 chose actual land distribution.
On November 6, 1989, the DAR Secretary Mirriam Defensor-Santiago (now
deceased) proposed the revision of the SDP. On November 14, 1989, TADECO told
DAR Sec. MDS that the proposed revision were already in place in the SDP and
MOA. Hence, On November 21, 1989, a Resolution No. 89-12-2 approved the SDP
of TADECO/HLI.
From 1989 to 2005, HLI claimed to have extended the following benefits to
FWBs:
(a) PhP 3 Billion worth of salaries, wages and fringe benefits;
(b) 59 Million shares of stock distribution for free to FWBs;
(c) PhP 150M, PhP 37.5M, PhP 2.4M, all representing 3% of the gross
produce, the sale of 500 Ha of converted agricultural land of Hacienda
Luisita, and the sale of 80 Ha at PhP 80M for SCTEX, respectively.
(d) 240 sq.m. homelots distributed for free;
(e) Social service benefits
On August 15, 1995, HLI applied for conversion of the 500 Ha land from
agricultural to industrial, which was approved by DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao a
year later, or on August 14, 1996, conditioned on the payment of 3% of gross selling
price to FWBs and HLI’s continued compliance with its undertakings under the SDP.
On December 13, 1996, HLI ceded 200 Ha to Luisita Realty Corp. (LRC) at
PhP 250 Million each in 1997 and 1998, and 300 Ha of its converted areas to
Centennary Holdings, Inc. (Centennary), who later sold the same to LIPCO for PhP
750 Million, the latter acquiring it for purpose of developing an industrial complex.
On November 25, 2004, LIPCO transferred portion of the lands acquired to
RCBC by way of dation en pago in payment of LIPCO’s PhP 431,634,732.10 loan.
Another 80.51 Ha was later detached from Hacienda Luisita and acquired by
the government as part of the SCTEX complex. About 4,335.75 Ha out of the 4,915
Ha remained of the original area ceded by TADECO to HLI.
With the prevailing situation, earlier in 2003, DAR received two petitions
seeking to renegotiate, and/or revoke the SDOA for violation by the HLI of the
SDOA’s terms.
In the first petition, Jose Julio Suniga and Windsor Andaya (Supervisory Group
of HLI) and 60 other supervisors alleged that HLI failed to give their dividends, and
their share in the gross sales and proceeds of the sales of the converted area 500 Ha
area. They claimed that their lives have not improved contrary to the guarantees of the
SDOA.
 In the second petition (Petisyon), they call for the revocation and nullification
of the SDOA and the distribution of the lands. The Petisyon was filed by the
AMBALA (composing about 80% of the 5,339 FWBs of Hacienda Luisita).
DAR constituted a Special Task Force to attend to the issues relating to the
SDP of HLI and the latter found that HLI failed to comply with their undertakings.
On December 22, 2005, PARC affirmed the recommendation of DAR to
recall/revoke the SDOP of TADECO/HLI and the land be placed under compulsory
coverage or mandated land acquisition.
On January 2, 2006, HLI sought reconsideration. On the same day, DAR
issued a Notice of Coverage, which HLI received 2 days after.
On May 3, 2006, PARC’s Resolution denied MR by HLI.
But on June 14, 2006, the Court, acting on HLI’s motion, issued a TRO,
enjoining the implementation of PARC’s Resolution and the notice of coverage.
On December 2, 2006, Mallari filed a manisfestation and motion, alleging that
he broke up with AMBALA and formed FARM with Renato Lalic, and thus prayed to
be allowed to intervene. In this moment, two factions were created due to shirt and
re-shift of allegiance, as Mallari would later return to create an AMBALA-Noel Mallari
faction, leaving Renato Lalic with the rest of the members in FARM.
On October 30, 2007, RCBC and LIPCO intervened and alleged that the
assailed resolution effectively nullified the TCTs under their respective names as the
properties covered in the TCTs were included in the January 2, 2006 Notice of
Coverage. They claim that the revocation of SDP cannot legally affect their rights as
innocent purchasers for value. They both asserted to have acquired vested and
indefeasible rights over certain portions of the covered properties.
On August 31, 2010, the Court created a Mediation Panel in a bid to resolve
the dispute but no acceptable agreement was reached.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not petitioners for the revocation/nullification of SDOA (herein
respondents) are real party-in-interests;
(2) Whether or not PARC has jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLI’s SDP;
(3) Whether or not Section 31 of RA 6657 is constitutional;
(4) Whether or not such recall or revocation is a valid or proper action; and
(5) Whether or not the terms and conditions of the SDP, as embodied in the
SDOA is valid.
RULINGS:
FIRST ISSUE:
YES. The Supreme Court held that Supervisory Group, AMBALA and their
respective leaders are real parties-in-interest.
The SDOA identifies the “SDP qualified beneficiaries” as “the farmworkers
who appears in the annual payroll, inclusive of the permanent and seasonal
employees, who are regularly or periodically employed by HLI.” Galang and the
Supervisory group who were admittedly employed by HLI comes within the
definition of real party-in-interest under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, as
one benefited or injured by the judgment in a suit, and thus, entitled to sue.
Assuming arguendo that they are not regular farmworkers, Article XIII of the
Constitution categorized them as “other farmworkers” entitled to “receive a just share of the
fruits” of the land.
SECOND ISSUE:
YES. Although E0 229 expressly vested PARC with such authority to approve
plan for stock distribution, without explicitly vesting it to revoke/recall an approved
SDP, under the principle of necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is
implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. To simply
state it, every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all
incidental power, right, or privilege. Following the said doctrine, it may be stated that
the conferment of express power to approve SDP of agricultural land of corporate
owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan, for
to deny PARC of such revocation power, as in this case, would reduce it into a
toothless agency of CARP.
On a related issue, HLI claimed that subjecting the landholding to compulsory
distribution after the approval of its SDP results in the impairment of obligation and
contract, and as such, a breach of its terms and conditions is not a PARC
administrative matter, but one that gives rise to a cause of action cognizable by regular
courts. The Supreme Court stressed that SDOA is a special contract imbued with
public interest, entered into pursuant to RA 6657 and subject to the approval and
administrative adjudication of its issuing authority—PARC.
Contrary to the view of HLI, the rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties
to the SDOA embodying the SDP are governed by RA 6657 and not by the
Corporation Code. HLI, as pointed by the Court was made to comply with RA 6657,
and not to shield itself from the coverage of CARP and supplant or circumvent the
agrarian reform program. Also as between the Corporation Code, a general law and
RA 6657, a special law, the latter prevails –generalia specialibus non derogant. What private
respondents questioned before the Dar was the proper implementation of SDP and
HLI’s compliance with RA 6657. Evidently, RA 6657 was the applicable law in this
case.
Also, contrary to the view of HLI that the inclusion of the agricultural land of
Hacienda Luisita under CARP coverage and the eventual distribution of the land to
FWBs amounts to the dissolution of all corporate assets of HLI, and thus the
Corporation Code apply, the Court was not persuaded. The Court said that such
inclusion and eventual distribution will not automatically trigger the dissolution of
HLI since the value of agricultural lands in relation to the total assets transferred and
conveyed by TADECO to HLI comprises only 33.296% (meaning it does not hold
the majority assets of the corporation to trigger such dissolution).
THIRD ISSUE:
In this issue on constitutionality of Section 31 of RA 6657, FARM seeks to
invalidate the said provision of the law because it allows corporations to use stock
distribution as its mode of distribution or transfer instead of an outright agricultural
land transfer, which they believe impairs the fundamental right of farmers and
farmworkers envisioned under Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution. HLI
counters this matter by saying that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of land
ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries.
Accordingly, the challenge on the constitutionality of Section 31 of RA 6657
and its counterpart provision in EO 229 failed.
The essential requisites for the exercise of its power of judicial review include
the following:
(1) There is an actual case or controversy
(2) That the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible opportunity by
the proper party or one with locus standi; and
(3) The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. [Garcia vs.
Executive Secretary, 415 SCRA 44 (2009)]
The Supreme Court reasoned that the reason it failed was because of failure of
the intervenors to question its constitutionality in the earliest opportunity, and instead,
slept on their rights and received benefits derived from the same. As early as
November 21, 1989 when PARC approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or at least
within a reasonable time thereafter, its members received benefits from the SDP
without so much protest. It was only on December 4, 2003 or 14 years after approval
of the SDP via PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989 that said
plan and approving resolution was sought to be revoked. Furthermore, AMBALA did
NOT question the constitutionality of said provision but focused on the flaws and
gaps in the subsequent implementation of the SDP. Even the public respondent Sol.
Gen. did not question it, and such question was only raised on May 3, 2007 when it
filed its Supplemental Comment with the Court.
It has been stressed by the Supreme Court that the question on
constitutionality will not passed upon by the Court unless it is raised at the first or
earliest possible opportunity by the proper party.
In terms of the lis mota of the case, the invalidity of the provision was not
alleged, but rather it is the alleged application in the SDP that is flawed was raised.
The Supreme Court also noted that Section 5 of RA 9700 superseded Section
31 of RA 6657 vis-à-vis the stock distribution component of said provision, where
Section 5 of RA 9700 provides: “That after June 30, 2009, the mode of acquisition
shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition.” Thus,
stock distribution is no longer an available option under existing law. The issue has
become moot and academic.
 The Supreme Court ruled that there appeared to have been no breach of the
fundamental law. Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
“The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right
of the farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to OWN directly or
COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS THEY TILL or, in the case of other farmworkers,
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.”

The law is clear – farmers and regular farmworkers have a right to OWN
DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS THEY TILL. The basic law
allows two modes of land distribution—direct and indirect ownership. No language is
found in the 1987 Constitution that disqualifies or prohibits corporations or
cooperatives of farmers from being the legal entity through which collective
ownership can be exercised. The term “collectively” is said to allow indirect
ownership of land and not just outright agricultural land transfer. This is in
recognition of the fact that land reform may become successful even if it is done
through the medium of juridical entities composed of farmers.
Even in the definition of agrarian reform itself in RA 6657 allows stock
distribution— “the redistribution of lands… to farmers and regular farmworkers who
are landless… to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other
arrangements alternative to physical redistribution of land, such as production or
profit sharing, labour management and the distribution of shares of stock which
allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the land they work.”
The SC believed that Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is NOT inconsistent with the State’s
commitment to farmers and farmworkers to advance their interests under the policy
of social justice. This is believed to be the modality of the legislature for collective
ownership by which the imperatives of social justice may be approximated, if not
achieved.
Also as contended by FARM that stock certificates do not equate to land
ownership, still, the Corporation Code is clear that the FWB becomes a stockholder
who acquires an equitable interest in the assets of the corporation, which includes the
agricultural lands. A share of stock typifies an aliquot part of the corporation’s
property, or right to share in its proceeds to the extent when distributed according to
law and equity and that its holder is not the owner of any part of the capital of the
corporation. However, the FWBs will ultimately own the agricultural lands owned by
the corporation when the latter is eventually dissolved and liquidated.
The policy of agrarian reform is that control over the agricultural land must
always be in the hands of the farmers. The Court also reasoned that there can be no
guarantee of a successful implementation of agrarian reform, whether there is actual
distribution or not. Accordingly, the principle of “land to the tiller and the old
pastoral model of ownership were non-human juridical persons were prohibited from
owning agricultural lands are no longer realistic under existing conditions.
FOURTH ISSUE:
On the determination of the propriety of such revocation or recall of HLI’s
SDP by PARC for violating the agrarian reform policy under Sec. 2 of RA 6657, as
said plan fail to enhance the dignity and improve the quality of lives of the FWBs
through greater productivity of agricultural lands, the SC disagreed.
The SC reasoned that Section 2 of RA 6657 states that improving the economic
status of FWBs is neither among the legal obligations of HLI under the SDP nor an
imperative imposition by RA 6657 and DAO 10, a violation of which would justify
discarding the stock distribution option. Nothing in that option agreement, law or
department order indicates otherwise.
Also SC said that it’s a matter of common business sense that no corporation
could guarantee a profitable run all the time. As such being the case, SDP cannot also
guarantee, as indeed the SDOA does not guarantee, a comfortable life for the FWBs.

The onerous condition of the FWBs’ economic status and hardships can hardly
be attributed to HLI and its SDP and provide a valid ground for the plan’s revocation.

On the Conversion of Lands

In this issue of the conversion of 500 Ha to non-agricultural uses as an
infringement of Sec. 5 (a) of DAO 10, which reads: “a. that the continued operation
of the corporation with its agricultural land intact and unfragmented is viable with
potential for growth and increased profitability”, the SC said that the PARC is wrong.
Said Sec. 5 (a) of DAO 10 does not exact from the corporate landowner-
applicant the undertaking to keep the farm intact and unfragmented ad infinitum
(forever). What is required is viability of the corporate operations with or without its
corporate land remaining intact or unfragmented.”
On the 3% Production Share
On the matter of whether HLI complied with its undertaking to give 3% shares
of the gross production sales of the land, the SC ruled that the Special Task Force was
silent as to whether HLI has failed to comply with the 3% production-sharing
obligation or the 3% of the gross selling price of the converted land and the SCTEX
lot, since some FWBs admits to have received their share in the gross production of
the sales and in the sale of SCTEX lot while the others claimed otherwise. The Court
found this as a slight breach that would not justify rescission of the contract.

On Titles to Homelots

Under RA 6657, the distribution of homelots is required only for corporations

or other business associations owning or operating farms which opted for land
distribution, and not for corporations which opted for stock distribution under Sec.
31 of RA 6657. Concomitantly, said corporation are not obliged to provide it,
EXCEPT by stipulation, as in this case.
Under the SDP, HLI subdivided and allocated for free to qualified family-
beneficiaries 240 sq. m. homelots in the barrio or barangay where they actually reside.
The Court opined that 16 years have elapse from the time the SDP was approved by
PARC, and yet FWBs alleged that not all were afforded homelots. Hence, SC ruled
that HLI has not yet fully complied with its undertaking to distribute homelots to
FWBs under the SDP.

On “Man Days” and the Mechanics of Stock Distribution

The SC found that the SDOA violated two provisions of DAO 10.

In Par. 3 of the SDOA, the distribution of the shares of stock to the FWBs is
contigent on the number of days FWBs have worked during the year. This deviates
from Sec. 4, DAO 10, which decrees the distribution of equal number of shares to the
FWBs as the minimum ratio of shares of stock for purposes of compliance with
Section 21 of RA 6657.

Accordingly, Section 4 of DAO 10 gives two sets of shares of stocks which a

qualified beneficiary can acquire from the corporation under the SDP. The first one is
the mandatory ratio of equal number of shares of stocks to be distributed to the
FWBs which contemplates “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 asset.”
The second partakes a gratuitous extra grant or an augmentation share/s that
the corporate landowner may give under an additional stock distribution scheme,
taking into account the rank, seniority, salary, position, and like factors which the
management, in the exercise of its sound discretion, may deem desirable.
However, the Court found that by providing that number of shares of the
original 1989 FWBs to depend on the number of “man days”, HLI violated the rule
on stock distribution and effectively deprived the FWBs of equal shares of stock in
the corporation notwithstanding the fact that these FWBs have given up their right to
the land that could have been distributed to them instead of suffering such dilution
regarding their due share entitlement.

Each of the 6,296 original FWBs is entitled to 18,804.32 HLI shares. The
original FWBs got less than the guaranteed 18,804.32 HLI shares per beneficiary,
because the acquisition and distribution of the HLI share per beneficiary needs to
work at least 37 days in a fiscal year before the latter becomes entitled to HLI shares.
If it falls below 37 days, the FWB gets no share at year end. The number of HLI
shares distributed varies depending on the number of days the FWBs were allowed to
work in one year. Worst is they even hired additional farmworkers which reached a
number of 10,502 which eventually diluted the 18,804.32 shares as a result of the use
of “man days” and hiring additional farmworkers (as ‘kahati’ in the share obviously).
Another sub-issue pointed is the reliance of HLI to Section 26 of RA 6657
which suggests that land awarded “shall be paid to by the beneficiaries to the LBP in
30 annual amortizations.” To simply put it, the beneficiaries are the ones obliged to
pay the LBP (which would really make it impossible for them to own it) and it is the
HLI who is obliged to distribute the shares of stocks among FWBs.
Exclusion from the coverage of land purchased by RCBC and LIPCO (III)

On resolving the issue of whether the converted farm land (allegedly)

innocently purchased for value by RCBC and LIPCO should be excluded from the
PARC Resolution 2005-32-01, as implemented by the DAR-issued Notice of
Coverage dated January 2, 2006, which called for a mandatory CARP acquisition of
the lands subject of the SDP, the SC opined that although Section 44 of PD 1529
gives the principle that one need not look at the four corners of the title and may rely
on what appears on it, the rule admits to some exceptions, as when the party had
knowledge of the facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man
to make inquiry, or when the purchaser has knowledge of the defect of lack of title, or
sufficient facts to make inquiry into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
Obviously, a higher level of care and diligence is expected from banks, their business
being impressed with public interest.
But the Court ruled that facts prove that RCBC and LIPCO cannot be claimed
to have acted in bad faith to have acquired the lots that were previously covered by
SDP. The Court said that RCBC and LIPCO honestly believed that the subject lots
were validly converted to commercial or industrial purposes and for which said lots
were taken out of the CARP coverage of PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 and hence,
can be legally and validly acquired by them, and since Section 65 of RA 6657 allows
conversion and disposition of agricultural lands previously covered by CARP. Also
DAR notified all affected parties, especially the FWBs but the order became final and
executory after failure to interpose an appeal. Since RCBC and LIPCO believed in
good faith that the previous registered owners could legally sell and convey the lot
though these were previously subject of CARP coverage. Ergo, RCBC and LIPCO
acted in good faith in acquiring the subject lots. This fact cannot be disregarded by
DAR, PARC, or even the SC.

As regards to the 80.51 ha land transferred to the government for use as part of
SCTEX, this is excluded from the compulsory coverage considering that the transfer
was made via the government’s power of eminent domain.
As to the actual existence of a statute or executive act is, prior to such a
determination, an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be
ignored; the past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
 In this case, it is not the SDOA dated May 11, 1989 which was revoked, but
rather, it is the PARC’s approval of the HLI’s Proposal for Stock Distribution under
CARP which embodied the SDP that was nullified. It is the SDP that gave legal force
an effect to the stock distribution scheme under PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 that
gave it its validity, and not the SDOA which merely gave its basis and mechanics.
On PARC’s Resolutions effectively nullifying the Hacienda Luisita’s
SDP (IV)
The Court upheld the revocation of the questioned PARC resolutions. The
Court also recognized the rights of the original 6,296 qualified FWBs to choose
whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or not. The Court reasoned that it
cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the FWBs were said to have received benefits
from the said agreement. Also on August 6, 2010, HLI and private respondents
submitted a Compromise Agreement, in which HLI gave the FWBs the option of
acquiring a piece of agricultural lands or remain as HLI stockholders, and which most
FWBs chose the latter.
With regards to the homelots already awarded, the FWBs are not obliged to
return it to HLI or pay for its value since it is part of the SDP’s benefit granted to
them. However, for those who did not receive the homelot as of the revocation of the
SDP on December 22, 2005 when PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 was issued, will
no longer be entitled to homelots. In case of distribution, the homelots would then
not be deducted.
In terms of the 3% proceeds of the 500-ha land and 80.51 ha SCTEX lot to
FWBs, DAR will move for the auditing of HLI’s books to determine if the proceeds
where utilized fof legitimate corporate purpose and the remaining balance from the
proceeds of the sale shall be distributed to the qualified beneficiaries.
In view of HLI’s payment of rent to FWBs for the use of the land from 1989,
the Court said that this cannot be done as the FWBs are also stockholders of HLI (a
seemingly elite title), and the benefits acquired by the corporation from its possession
and use of the land ultimately redounded to the FWBs benefit based on its business
operations in the form of salaries, and other fringe benefits under the CBA. To allow
payment of rent would tantamount to double compensation.
HLI will continue to exist, not functioning under the SDP, as the same was
revoked already, but pursuant to the Corporation Code as a private stock corporation.
HLI shall also be paid just compensation for the remaining agricultural lands
that will be transferred to DAR for land distribution to the FWBs. The date of
taking considered by the SC is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved the HLI’s
SDP per PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2. DAR shall coordinate with LBP for the
determination of just compensation, and NOT May 11, 1989, when the SDOA was
approved by PARC.
 The petition is treated as pro hac vice (means for this case only) in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
THE INSTANT PETITION IS DENIED.
PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 dated December 22, 2005 (wherein PARC
affirmed the recommendation of DAR to recall/revoke the SDOP of
TADECO/HLI and the land be placed under compulsory coverage or mandated land
acquisition) and May 3, 2006 (wherein PARC denied MR by HLI) are AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION that the original 6,296 qualified FWBs shall have the option
to remain as stockholders of HLI. Other FWBs who do not belong to the said
original qualified beneficiaries are NOT entitled to land distribution and shall remain
as HLI stockholders. HLI is directed to pay the FWBs the cconsiderations received
from the 500 Ha converted land sale and 80.51 ha SCTEX lot, wherein the 3% gross
sales from the production of agricultural land, including expenditures for legitimate
corporate purpose, such as taxes and title transfer payments, shall be deducted from
the total amount of PhP 1,330,511,500 (3 comas!). Any unspent or unused balance
will be distributed to the original FWBs.
HLI is entitled to just compensation for the agricultural land that will be
transferred to DAR to be reckoned from November 21, 1989 and LBP are ordered to
determine the compensation due to HLI.
DAR’s compliance report is ordered to be submitted six months from finality
of judgment. TRO is lifted.
DISSENTING OPINION

Corona, C.J.:
One of the nice points given by the late CJ Corona (ousted in the PNoy
Administration) states, to wit:
“Agrarian reform is an essential element of social justice under the 1987
Constitution. It mandates that farmers and farmworkers have the right to own the
land they till, individually and collectively, through cooperative or similar
organizations. It aims to liberate farmers and farmworkers from bondage to the soil,
to ensure that they do not remain slaves of the land but stewards thereof.”
He also opined that “unless there is land distribution, there can be no agrarian
reform. Any program that gives farmers or farmworkers anything less than ownership
of land fails to conform to the mandate of the Constitution. In other words, a
program that gives qualified beneficiaries stock certificates instead of land is not
agrarian reform.”
He believed that “actual land distribution is the essential characteristic of
a constitutional agrarian reform program.” Accordingly, the “polar star” in land
reform is that ‘the farmer has a right to the land he tills”.
 In the APRIL 24, 2012 RESOLUTION involving the same Hacienda Luisita
Case
On November 22, 2011, the Court recalled and set aside the option to remain
as stockholders of HLI, while maintaining that all benefits received shall be respected
with no obligation to refund or return them.
On December 9, 2011, a Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification by private
respondents Mallari, Suniga, Supervisory Group of HLI, and Andaya (Mallari, et al.
On December 16, 2011, a Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of
November 22, 2011 was filed by HLI.

HLI and Mallari, et al., invokes the following grounds:

A. WON SC erred in determining just compensation by considering the date
of taking as November 21, 1989 when PARC approved the SDP (already
revoked) since the Notice of Coverage of January 2, 2006 may be
considered as time FWBs owned and possess the agricultural lands of
Hacienda Luisita because it was the only time when the latter was placed
under Compulsory Acquisition in view of failure to perform their
obligations under the SDP, or SDOA, when the owner is ACTUALLY
deprived or dispossessed of his property, and considering taking from
November 21, 1989 is a deprivation of landowner’s property WITHOUT
due process of law; and HLI is entitled to be paid interest on the just
compensation.
B. WON SC erred in reversing the decision of giving the FWBs option to
remain as stockholders or not since (1) it has been decided; (2) that neither
the Constitution nor the CARL requires that FWBs should have control
over the agricultural lands; and (3) that the option is not shown to be
detrimental to FWBs, but rather found beneficial by the SC.
C. The proprietary of distributing the proceeds from the sale of the 500ha and
80.51 SCTEX lot cannot be retained by HLI but returned to the FWBs and
that HLI is using the Corporation Code to avoid liability to the FWBs
because: (1) the proceeds belongs to the corporation and not to either the
HLI/TADECO or FWBs; and (2) to allow return or proceeds to FWBs.
D. Just Compensation for the Homelots given to FWBs as it does not form
part of the 4,915.75 hectares covered by the SDP, and hence, the value of
these homelots should, with the revocation of the SDP, be paid to Tadeco
as the landowner.
ON JUST COMPENSATION:

The Court stressed that “just compensation has been defined as the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure
is not the takers gain, but the owner’s loss. Hence, in determining just compensation,
the price or value of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and
appropriated by the government shall be the basis. If the government takes possession
of the land before the institution of expropriation proceedings, the value should be
fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of the filing of the
complaint.”
The SC, citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioc, said that taking is when the
landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when the title
is transferred to the Republic. It also noted that 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 case of HLI earlier
decided. Thus, HLI submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part
that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, the
PARC approval should be considered as the effective date of taking because it was
only during that time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of
these lands.
Accordingly, Stock distribution and compulsory acquisition are two modalities
sharing the same end goal of having a more equitable distribution of land ownership,
without ignoring such right to just compensation. Also, since it is only upon the
approval of the SDP that the agricultural lands actually came under CARP coverage,
such approval operates and takes the place of a notice of coverage ordinarily issued
under compulsory acquisition.

What the SC found notable, however, is that the divestment by Tadeco of the
agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita and the giving of the shares of stock for free is
nothing but an enticement or incentive for the FWBs to agree with the stock
distribution option scheme and not further push for land distribution. And the
stubborn fact is that the “man days” scheme of HLI impelled the FWBs to work in
the hacienda in exchange for such shares of stock.

The Court ruled that taking only when the landowner is deprived of the use
and benefit of his property is not incompatible with the earlier conclusion that taking
took place on November 21, 1989, and since even from the start, TADECO seemed
to already favour Stock Distribution Scheme when complying with the CARP when it
organized the HLI as its spin-off corporation which facilitated stock acquisition of
FWBs. Tadeco assigned and conveyed 4,915.75 has to HLI the agricultural lands of
Hacienda Luisita. These agricultural lands constituted as the capital contribution of
the FWBs in HLI. This, in effect, deprived TADECO itself of the ownership over
these lands when it transferred the same to HLI.

When the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita were transferred by Tadeco to

HLI in order to comply with CARP through the stock distribution option scheme
under PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989, Tadeco was
consequently dispossessed of the ownership of the same.
 Furthermore, adherence to the suggestion of HLI that the Notice of Coverage
issued on January 2, 2006 should be considered as date of taking would in effect
penalize the qualified FWBs twice for acceding to the Stock Distribution Scheme, (1)
depriving them of the agricultural lands they should have gotten earlier, if it were not
for this SDP and (2) making them pay higher amortization for the agricultural lands
that should have been given to them decades ago.

The SC maintained that, as it has in fact already ruled on its reckoning date,
that is, November 21, 1989, the date of issuance of PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2,
based on the above-mentioned disquisitions.

On side note, the SC added that “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.”

Option will not ensure control over agricultural lands

The Court agreed that the option given to the qualified FWBs whether to
remain as stockholders of HLI or opt for land distribution is neither iniquitous nor
prejudicial to the FWBs. However, the Court is noted the policy on agrarian reform
that control over the agricultural land must always be in the hands of the farmers.
Contrary to the stance of HLI, both the Constitution and RA 6657 intended the
farmers, individually or collectively, to have control over the agricultural lands of HLI;
otherwise, all these rhetoric about agrarian reform will be rendered for naught.
Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded
on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own
directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to
receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of
small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing. (Emphasis supplied.)

Sec. 2 of RA 6657 also states:

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 farm workers will receive the highest consideration to promote social
justice and to move the nation towards sound rural development and
industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-sized
farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.
 The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular
farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive a share of the fruits thereof.

As discussed by the SC, there is collective ownership as long as there is a

concerted group work by the farmers on the land, regardless of whether the
landowner is a cooperative, association or corporation composed of farmers.
However, the definition of collective ownership should be read in light of the clear
policy of the law on agrarian reform, which is to emancipate the tiller from the
bondage of the soil and empower the common people.
“HLI’s insistent view that control need not be in the hands of the farmers
translates to allowing it to run roughshod against the very reason for the
enactment of agrarian reform laws and leave the farmers in their shackles with
sheer lip service to look forward to.” (quotable phrase)
FWBs Entitled to Proceeds of Sale
The proceeds realized from the sale should accrue for the benefit of the FWBs,
minus deductions of the 3% of the proceeds of said transfers that were paid to the
FWBs, the taxes and expenses relating to the transfer of titles to the transferees, and
the expenditures incurred by HLI and Centennary Holdings, Inc. for legitimate
corporate purposes, as prescribed in our November 22, 2011 Resolution.
HOMELOTS

The SC agreed to DISAGREE.

As reiterated in the earlier decision, the distribution of homelots is required under RA
6657 only for corporations or business associations owning or operating farms which
opted for land distribution. Corporations are not obliged to provide for homelots.
Nonetheless, HLI undertook to subdivide and allocate for free and without
charge among the qualified family-beneficiaries 240 sq. m. of homelots to some, if not
all of the qualified beneficiaries.
The Supreme Court, by a unanimous vote, resolved to maintain its ruling that
the FWBs shall retain ownership of the homelots given to them with no obligation to
pay for the value of said lots. Also, since the SDP was already revoked with finality in
th earlier discussion of the decision, the Court directs the government through the
DAR to pay HLI the just compensation for said homelots in consonance with Sec. 4,
Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution that the taking of land for use in the agrarian
reform program is subject to the payment of just compensation.
The Motions of both parties were DENIED with qualification. The July 5,
2011, Decision was modified by the November 21, 2011 Resolution which ordered
the government, through the DAR, to pay just compensation for the 240 sq. m.
homelots distributed to FWBs. This RESOLUTION is now declared FINAL and
EXECUTORY.