Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 247 views

    DAR v. Sutton Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    pa0l0s
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, which placed restrictions on the ownership of private lands used for livestock raising. The respondents owned land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and grazing. While the land was initially included in agrarian reform coverage, a previous Supreme Court ruling had found that livestock farming should be excluded as it is an industrial, not agricultural, activity. However, DAR AO No. 9 again included livestock farms and imposed ownership limits. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the AO null and void, finding that it exceeded DAR's powers and contravened the Constitution by regulating lands that were intended to be exempted from agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

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

    DAR v. Sutton Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    pa0l0s
    247 views1 page
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, which placed restrictions on the ownership of private lands used for livestock raising. The respondents owned land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and grazing. While the land was initially included in agrarian reform coverage, a previous Supreme Court ruling had found that livestock farming should be excluded as it is an industrial, not agricultural, activity. However, DAR AO No. 9 again included livestock farms and imposed ownership limits. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the AO null and void, finding that it exceeded DAR's powers and contravened the Constitution by regulating lands that were intended to be exempted from agrarian reform.

    Original Title

    31.-DAR-v.-Sutton-Case-Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, which placed restrictions on the ownership of private lands used for livestock raising. The respondents owned land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and grazing. While the land was initially included in agrarian reform coverage, a previous Supreme Court ruling had found that livestock farming should be excluded as it is an industrial, not agricultural, activity. However, DAR AO No. 9 again included livestock farms and imposed ownership limits. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the AO null and void, finding that it exceeded DAR's powers and contravened the Constitution by regulating lands that were intended to be exempted from agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    247 views1 page

    DAR v. Sutton Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    pa0l0s
    This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, which placed restrictions on the ownership of private lands used for livestock raising. The respondents owned land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and grazing. While the land was initially included in agrarian reform coverage, a previous Supreme Court ruling had found that livestock farming should be excluded as it is an industrial, not agricultural, activity. However, DAR AO No. 9 again included livestock farms and imposed ownership limits. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the AO null and void, finding that it exceeded DAR's powers and contravened the Constitution by regulating lands that were intended to be exempted from agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DAR vs. Delia T.

    Sutton
    Issue: Whether or not DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, series of 1993
    unconstitutional and violative of the Constitution.
    Facts:
    The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by
    respondents which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding.
    On October 26, 1987, pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program
    of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their
    landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law.
    On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also
    known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took
    effect. It included in its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and
    swine.
    On December 4, 1990, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz
    Farms v. Secretary of DAR, this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock
    and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land.
    Hence, we declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL
    insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform.
    Thus the owner withdraw their offer to sell the property as their landholding
    was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the
    coverage of the CARL
    On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993,
    which provided that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the
    raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded
    from the coverage of the CARL. In determining the area of land to be
    excluded, the A.O. fixed the following retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land
    ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal shall be retained by the
    landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for
    every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the
    CARL. This AO prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of lands
    devoted to livestock raising.
    On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao
    issued an Order partially granting the application of respondents for
    exemption from the coverage of CARL. Applying the retention limits outlined
    in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner exempted 1,209 hectares of respondents'
    land for grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares for
    infrastructure. Petitioner ordered the rest of respondents' landholding to be
    segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. D
    Held:
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, DAR Administrative
    Order No. 09, Series of 1993 is hereby DECLARED null
    and void. The assailed order of the Office of the President
    dated 09 October 2001 in so far as it affirmed the

    Department of Agrarian Reform's ruling that petitioners'


    landholding is covered by the agrarian reform program of
    the government is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
    Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in
    nature, i.e., the power to make rules and regulations. However, while
    administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law, they are
    not immune from judicial review. They may be properly challenged before the
    courts to ensure that they do not violate the Constitution and no grave abuse
    of administrative discretion is committed by the administrative body
    concerned.
    The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid,
    administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law
    and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution.
    In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes
    the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including
    them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum
    retention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987
    Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all
    lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. The
    Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultryraising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of
    "agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The raising of livestock, swine and
    poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an
    agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in
    the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and
    facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers,
    conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for
    feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester
    plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water
    tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.
    Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms
    which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of
    agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.
    The subsequent case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR reiterated our ruling in
    the Luz Farms case. In Natalia Realty, the Court held that industrial,
    commercial and residential lands are not covered by the CARL. We stressed
    anew that while Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall
    cover all public and private agricultural lands, the term "agricultural
    land" does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential,
    commercial or industrial. Thus, in Natalia Realty, even portions of the
    Antipolo Hills Subdivision, which are arable yet still undeveloped, could not
    be considered as agricultural lands subject to agrarian reform as these lots
    were already classified as residential lands.

    You might also like