Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Aninao V

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    The case involves 507 hectares of land that were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries under Presidential Decree 27. However, Asturias Chemical Industries later acquired the land and claimed it was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform. The DAR issued an exemption certificate for 284 hectares, finding it was not suitable for agriculture. The PARCCOM urged cancellation of the land transaction if illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the DAR's nullification, finding the land had ceased to be agricultural and was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform even before coverage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aninao V

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    106 views2 pages
    The case involves 507 hectares of land that were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries under Presidential Decree 27. However, Asturias Chemical Industries later acquired the land and claimed it was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform. The DAR issued an exemption certificate for 284 hectares, finding it was not suitable for agriculture. The PARCCOM urged cancellation of the land transaction if illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the DAR's nullification, finding the land had ceased to be agricultural and was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform even before coverage.

    Original Title

    ANINAO V

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves 507 hectares of land that were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries under Presidential Decree 27. However, Asturias Chemical Industries later acquired the land and claimed it was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform. The DAR issued an exemption certificate for 284 hectares, finding it was not suitable for agriculture. The PARCCOM urged cancellation of the land transaction if illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the DAR's nullification, finding the land had ceased to be agricultural and was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform even before coverage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    Aninao V

    Uploaded by

    Buen Libetario
    The case involves 507 hectares of land that were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries under Presidential Decree 27. However, Asturias Chemical Industries later acquired the land and claimed it was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform. The DAR issued an exemption certificate for 284 hectares, finding it was not suitable for agriculture. The PARCCOM urged cancellation of the land transaction if illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the DAR's nullification, finding the land had ceased to be agricultural and was mineral land not subject to agrarian reform even before coverage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ANINAO V.

    ASTURIAS

    FACTS:

    Subject of this case are several parcels of land with a total area of 507 hectares, more or less, which
    used to form part of a larger expanse consisting of 807 hectares situated in Brgys. Baha and Talibayog,
    Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue. Records show that on various dates in
    1989 and 1990, emancipation patents (EPs) covering the disputed lands were issued to 323 agrarian
    reform beneficiaries pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27
    and/or Executive Order (EO) No. 228, s. of 1987, entitled “Declaring Full Ownership to Qualified Farmer
    Beneficiaries Covered by [PD] No. 27.”

    Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the RTC handling the settlement his estate,
    sold to Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.

    Years later, Asturias, wrote a letter to the DAR Region IV office saying that its Calatagan landholding
    could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it having “already been declared as mineral land
    pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (‘MPSA’) between the government and Asturias”

    On September 22, 1999, DAR Regional Director (RD) Renato Herrera issued a certificate of exemption
    over the remaining 284.9323 hectares of land of Ascue, now owned by Asturias. The exemption order
    was based on the findings of the joint LVP-DARBARC team that “only fifteen (15) hectares, more or less,
    are planted with crops such as upland rice, bananas, corn and coconut while the rest, with an area of
    284.9323 hectares, are undeveloped, slopes of more than 18%, rocky, swampy, and/or mangrove areas
    and therefore not suitable for agricultural purposes.”

    On October 22, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) issued Res.
    No. 02 urging the Registry of Deeds—Nasugbu, Batangas to cancel/consider null and void the land
    transaction between Ascue and Asturias if proven that it was concluded in violation of existing laws. This
    was followed by Res. No. 3, s. of 1999, urging agrarian reform associations to gather and submit
    concrete evidence on the alleged selling by agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and EP holders of their
    rights

    ISSUE:

    Propriety of the nullification of the coverage under OLT of PD No. 27 of the tracts of land in question

    RULING:

    It is basic that the agrarian reform program, be it under the aegis of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27,
    otherwise known as the Tenants Emancipation Decree, or Republic Act (RA) 6657, also known as the
    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) law, covers only agricultural lands, meaning “lands
    devoted to agricultural activity as defined in [RA 6657] and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
    commercial or industrial land.” Presidential Decree No. 27, by its terms, applies to tenant-farmers of
    private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease-
    tenancy. On the other hand, the CARP law has, for its coverage, all public and private agricultural lands,
    regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced.

    As may be noted, EPs were issued to petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries or successors-in–
    interests pursuant to the OLT program under P.D. No. 27. To come within the coverage of the OLT, there
    must be showing that the land is devoted to rice or corn crops, and there must be a system of share-
    crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein when P.D. No. 27 took effect on October 21, 1972. If either
    requisite is absent, exclusion from the OLT coverage lies and Eps, if issued, may be cancelled.

    In the case at bench, the more compelling reason arguing for the propriety of the DAR’s assailed
    nullification action is its determination that the property in question “had long ceased to be agricultural
    and converted to mineral land even before it was placed under OLT coverage.” For, lands classified as
    mineral are exempt from agrarian reform coverage.

    You might also like