Milestone Farms vs Office of the President

FACTS:

• Among the pertinent secondary purposes of Milestone Farms are 1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; 2) to breed, raise, and sell poultry; and 3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock
• On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect
• In May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare property pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms.
• Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, DAR issued AO No. 9, Series of 1993, setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage.
• Milestone re-documented its application pursuant to said AO.
• DAR’s Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) conducted an ocular inspection on petitioner’s property and recommended the exemption of petitioner’s 316.0422-hectare property from the coverage of CARP.
• DAR Regional Director Dalugdug adopted LUCEC’s recommendation
• The Pinugay Farmers, represented by Balajadia, moved for the reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by Director Dalugdug. Hence, they filed an appeal with DAR Secretary
• Subsequently, Milestone filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against Balajadia and company before the MCTC.
• MCTC ruled in favor of Milestone
• RTC reversed the decision of MCTC
• CA ruled in favor of Milestone
• DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property to be covered by CARP.
• Office of the President primarily reinstated the decision of Director Dalugdug but when the farmers filed a motion for reconsideration, Office of the President reinstated the decision of Director Garilao.
• CA primarily ruled in favor of Milestone in exempting the entire property from the coverage of CARP. However, six months earlier, without the knowledge of the CA – as the parties did not inform the appellate court – then DAR Secretary Villa issued DAR conversion order granting petitioner’s application to convert portions of the 316.0422-hectare property from agricultural to residential and golf courses use. The portions converted was with a total area of 153.3049 hectares. With this Conversion Order, the area of the property subject of the controversy was effectively reduced to 162.7373 hectares.
• With the CA now made aware of these developments, particularly Secretary Villa’s Conversion Order, CA had to acknowledge that the property subject of the controversy would now be limited to the remaining 162.7373 hectares. CA, in its amended decision, states that the subject landholding from the coverage of CARP is hereby lifted, and the 162.7373 hectare-agricultural portion thereof is hereby declared covered by the CARP.

ISSUE: Whether or not Milestone’s property should be exempted from the coverage of CARP

HELD:

• No.
• When CA made its decision, DAR AO No. 9 was not yet declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, it could not be said that the CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in respecting the mandate of DAR A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in full force and effect.
• As correctly held by respondent OP, the CA correctly held that the subject property is not exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is not exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising.