DAR vs Delia Sutton

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, CARL took effect.
• In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL.
• MARO inspected respondents’ land and found that it was devoted solely to cattle-raising and breeding.  He recommended to the DAR Secretary that it be exempted from the coverage of the CARL.
• DAR ignored their request
• 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.
• DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL. Respondents moved for reconsideration.  They contend that their entire landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising.  Their motion was denied.
• Office of the President affirmed the order of DAR
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents.  It declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the land reform program of the government.

ISSUE:  Whether or not DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional.

HELD:

• Assailed AO is unconstitutional.
• 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.