SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228503. December 5, 2018.]
HEIRS OF RAMON ARCE, SR., NAMELY: EULALIO ARCE, LORENZA ARCE, RAMON ARCE, JR., MAURO ARCE AND ESPERANZA ARCE, petitioners, vs.DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE SECRETARY VIRGILIO DELOS REYES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 5, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228503 (Heirs of Ramon Arce, Sr., namely: Eulalio Arce, Lorenza Arce, Ramon Arce, Jr., Mauro Arce and Esperanza Arce v. Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by the Honorable Secretary Virgilio Delos Reyes.)
As early as the 1950s, before the advent of Republic Act No. 6657, 1 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, through which the State implements its policy for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), petitioners were the registered owners of a parcel of land located in Barangay Macabud, Montalban, Rizal. The subject lands were utilized as pasture land for petitioners' cattle, i.e., buffaloes, carabaos and goats (referred to as livestock).
On August 6, 2008, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Teresa, Rizal issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) over the subject lands under the CARP. In response, petitioners sent a letter to the PARO of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Region IV-A, seeking to exclude and exempt the subject lands from the NOC, considering that it has been utilized for livestock raising even before the enactment of the CARP. This letter was treated as a Petition for Exclusion from CARP Coverage.
Petitioners filed a Manifestation to Lift Notice of Coverage with the PARO, which was granted by then DAR Regional Director (RD) Antonio G. Evangelista in his Order dated December 22, 2009. HESIcT
However, Joevin M. Ucag of DAR Region IV-A submitted an Ocular Inspection Report to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) stating that there was no livestock/cattle found in the area of Macabud, Rodriguez, Rizal. This prompted the Samahan ng mga Magsasakang Nagkakaisa sa Sitio Calumpit (SAMANACA), to write letters to then DAR Secretary Virgilio R. De Los Reyes, asking him to annul RD Evangelista's Order.
On December 7, 2012, DAR Secretary De Los Reyes issued an Order 2 denying petitioners' Petition for Exclusion from CARP Coverage. Thus, petitioners filed an appeal with the Office of the President (OP).
In the Decision 3 dated April 29, 2015, the OP reversed the DAR Secretary's Order and ruled that petitioners' subject lands are exempted from the coverage of CARP.
DAR, through Secretary Delos Reyes, filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA).
In the Decision 4 dated August 5, 2016, the CA granted the petition, and held, among others, that petitioners failed to refute or deny that since 1998, there have been no cattle in the subject lands and that the same have not been used as grazing lands.
Aggrieved, the petitioners sought recourse to this Court.
On July 25, 2018, the Court rendered its Decision 5 granting the petition. The Court upheld the exemption of the subject lands from the coverage of CARP.
Thereafter, DAR filed this instant motion for reconsideration.
Ruling of the Court
The motion should be denied.
We reiterate that in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, 6 it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the government. 7 In the case at bench, there is substantial evidence to show that the entirety of petitioners' subject lands have been devoted to livestock production since the 1950s, i.e., even before the enactment of the CARL on June 15, 1988. Indeed, the subject lands have been utilized for livestock raising, and as such, classified as industrial, and not agricultural lands. Thus, they are exempt from agrarian reform.
Notably, what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CARL. 8 As We have discussed in detail in Our assailed Decision, there is no showing that the subject lands which were devoted for livestock raising prior to the CARL, has been converted to an agricultural land, after its passage. Thus, petitioners' subject lands remain to be non-agricultural, i.e., devoted to livestock raising, and excluded from the coverage of the CARP. caITAC
Verily, the arguments raised by DAR in its motion for reconsideration are issues that have been meticulously and thoroughly considered and passed upon by the Court in the assailed Decision.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
The Opposition to respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Effective June 15, 1988.
2.Rollo, pp. 604-621.
3.Id. at 772-776.
4.Id. at 590-600.
5.Id. at 1181-1197.
6. 270 Phil. 151 (1990).
7.Id. at 158.
8.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005.