[DARCO ORDER NO. EXE-1106-121. June 8, 2011.]
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR LAND EXEMPTION BY ANGELINA N. DAYRIT OVER TWO PARCELS OF LAND UNDER TCT NO. T-1804 LOT NO. 104-57, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 213,376 SQUARE METERS AND FREE PATENT NO. 593069, LOT NO. 12413, CAD-237, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 60,717 SQUARE METERS, UNDER OCT NO. T-1338, BOTH SITUATED AT BOLISONG, EL SALVADOR, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, WITH A TOTAL AREA OF TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND NINETY THREE (274,093) SQUARE METERS. THIS APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION IS ANCHORED ON DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 13, SERIES OF 1993
ANGELINA DAYRIT, applicant-appellant,
JOSE NORQUILLAS, ROGELIO NORQUILLAS, ROMMIE NORQUILLAS, HERDANNY NORQUILLAS, DANILO NORQUILLAS, EUSEBIO MEJORADA, AGUSTIN ESPIRAT, FELIMINO NOB, ALLAN OMPOC, CARMELITO BONAYOG, ANTHONY APUS, CIPRIANO TAGANAS, EVANS SABAYANON AND TECLO MUGOT, oppositors-appellees.
ORDER
This treats of an appeal from the Order dated 12 March 2008 and Resolution dated 03 December 2009 issued by the Regional Director of Region X. The dispositive portion of the 12 March 2008 Order reads as follows:
"Wherefore, premises considered, Order is hereby issued excluding Lot No. 10457 under TCT No. T-1804 with an area of 21.3376 hectares from the coverage of CARP; and placing Lot No. 12413, with an area of 6.0717 (hectares) under CARP.
So ordered."
The facts of the case are:
Angelina Dayrit is the owner of two parcels of land located in Bolisong, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, viz:
Title No. Lot No. Area (in has)
TCT No. T-1804 10457 21.3376
OCT No. T-13388 12413 6.0717
————
Total 27.4093
======
On 01 April 1993, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of El Salvador issued a Notice of Coverage placing the subject lands under the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
On 06 June 1995, Angelina Dayrit, thru her son Atty. Rafael Dayrit wrote a letter to Engr. Felix Aguhob, then Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Misamis Oriental protesting the coverage under CARP of the subject parcels of land on the ground that the parcels of land had been used as poultry farm since 1978. Pursuant to the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Luz Farms vs. DAR Secretary, and under Republic Act (RA) No. 7881, the said parcels were excluded from the coverage of CARP.
On 23 June 1995, PARO Aguhob wrote a letter to Atty. Dayrit informing him that the protest should be substantiated either thru filing of an application for conversion or thru filing of an application for exclusion, otherwise, the coverage of the land under CARP would proceed.
On 21 August 1995 the MARO of El Salvador issued a certification that Atty. Dayrit did not file an application for conversion or an application for exemption.
Thereafter, the claimfolder for the Angelina Dayrit landholdings was forwarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for valuation.
On 05 November 1995, LBP returned the claimfolder to the DAR for the segregation of the area actually devoted to poultry raising and the retained area of the landowner.
On 25 February 1999, a survey was conducted wherein the five (5) hectares portion of Lot No. 10457, with a total area of 21.3376, was segregated as the retention area of the landowner, and another five (5) hectares portion of Lot No. 10457 was segregated for the poultry farm.
On 07 July 1999, the MARO transmitted the Angelina Dayrit claimfolder to PARO Aguhob.
On 19 July 1999, Angelina Dayrit wrote a letter to then Region X Regional Director (RD) Benjamin de Vera reiterating Atty. Dayrit's 06 June 1995 letter-protest that the subject parcels of land be excluded from the coverage of CARP for being devoted to cattle and poultry raising since 1978. RD de Vera indorsed the 19 July 1999 letter to the PARO who in turn indorsed the letter to the MARO of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.
In his 06 September 1999 Memorandum to RD de Vera, MARO Francisco Agad of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental stated that the claim for exemption from the coverage of CARP was formally sent by Angelina Dayrit only on 19 July 1999, long after the subject parcels of land were placed under the coverage of CARP. MARO Agad recommended that Angelina Dayrit be given five (5) hectares as retention area and another five (5) hectares for poultry farm, and the rest of the area be covered under CARP.
Pursuant to the recommendation of MARO Agad, 10.7166 hectares of the total area was excluded from the coverage of CARP while the remaining 16.6927 hectares were placed under CARP. On 19 November 2001, Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs), covering the 16.6927 hectares portion were issued to the following farmer-beneficiaries:
Name of Beneficiary CLOA No. Title No. Area
(in Has)
Eusebio Majorada, Jose Norquillas,
Rogelio Norquillas, Romie 00208228 C-9453 6.0717
Norquillas, Herdanny Norquillas,
Danilo Norquillas
Agustin Espirat, Felomino Nob,
Allan Ompoc 00208237 C-9495 7.0843
Carmelito Bonayog, Sr., Anthony
Apus, Cipriano Taganas, Evans 00208238 C-9455 3.5367
Sabayanon, Teclo Mugot
————
Total 16.6927
=======
Though the farmers-beneficiaries were issued with CLOAs, yet the CLOAs were not yet distributed to them because Angelina Dayrit filed a petition for cancellation of the CLOAs before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The PARAD granted the petition for cancellation, but on appeal, the DARAB archived the case pending the resolution of the petition for exclusion from CARP coverage at the DAR Secretary. The DARAB decision is now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals, under docket No. C.A. GR. SP No. 02564.
Up to this time, the CLOAs were not yet distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries. The farmer-beneficiaries are opposing the petition for exclusion.
Meanwhile, Angelina Dayrit's 06 June 1995 letter-protest and 19 July 1999 follow up letter-protest from CARP coverage were not immediately acted upon.
After several ocular inspections of the area by the DAR personnel from the Regional, Provincial and Municipal Offices, the protest was finally resolved by the Regional Director on 12 March 2008.
Regional Director John Maruhom, in his Order dated 12 March 2008, held that Angelina Dayrit was into poultry and cattle business as early as 1978, long before the CARP took effect. However, of the total landholdings, only 21.3376 hectares of the subject lands, covered by TCT No. T-1804, was found to have been actually, exclusively and directly devoted to poultry raising. The remaining 6.0717 hectares was found to be not actually, exclusively and directly devoted to poultry raisin for the said portion was planted to corn.
The dispositive portion of the 12 March 2008 Order reads as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued excluding Lot No. 104457 under TCT No. T-1804 with an area of 21.3376 hectares from the coverage of CARP and placing Lot No. 12413, with an area of 6.0717 under CARP.
SO ORDERED."
Angelina Dayrit moved for reconsideration of the 12 March 2008 Order but her motion was denied in a Resolution dated 03 December 2009.
On 11 December 2009 Angelina Dayrit filed a Notice of Appeal.
On 29 June 2010 the Regional Director of Region X issued an Order transmitting the records of the case to this Office.
On 15 October 2010, this Office, thru the Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI) sent a letter to Angelina Dayrit requiring her to file an Appeal Memorandum.
On 16 November 2010, Angelina Dayrit submitted her Appeal Memorandum where she argued that the entire landholdings should be excluded from the coverage of CARP pursuant to the doctrine laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of DAR vs. Delia Sutton, and also pursuant to the wisdom of the framers of the 1987 Constitution as embodied in Republic Act No. 7881 that lands devoted to cattle, poultry, livestock raising are not covered by CARP.
Angelina Dayrit likewise argued that the planting of corn on 6.0717 hectares did not remove said portion from not being directly, exclusively and actually used to poultry raising. The 6.0717 hectares serves as the free zone or the buffer zone to protect the poultry or bio-security. Hence, the said portion was necessary for the operation of the poultry.
Angelina Dayrit further averred that the 6.0717 hectares buffer zone serves as shield of the neighbouring areas from the foul smell emitted by the poultry. It also serves as the shield and protection of the broilers from diseases, sickness and contamination.
Moreover, the open space of 6.0717 hectares is used for the bio-mass decomposition of chicken dung because a necessary space is needed to allow the natural sunlight kill the bacteria and germs from spreading in the individual houses of the poultry.
Angelina Dayrit argued that in subjecting the 6.0717 hectares to CARP, the DAR is practically killing the poultry operation because the bio-security standard set by the Magnolia Company in poultry operation will be violated. This would result to revocation of the existing poultry contract growing. In covering the 6.0717 hectares under CARP, the government is denying private investor the opportunity to help the government guarantee food security.
On 14 December 2010, this Office received the Appellee's Memorandum (oppositors' Appeal Memorandum) where they raised the following arguments:
1. The filing of Appeal Memorandum by Angelina Dayrit is not in accordance with the Agrarian Reform Implementation (ALI) Rules of Procedures, and
2. The subject parcel of land is not directly, exclusively and actually used for poultry operation, hence, covered by CARP.
Oppossitors contended that under the 2003 ALI Rules on Procedure, the appellant, within ten (10) days from the perfection of an appeal, should file an appeal memorandum with the BALA.
However, in the instant case, Angelina Dayrit filed the appeal memorandum only on 17 November 2010 at the Office of the Secretary, or almost one (1) year from the perfection of her appeal on 14 December. Not only that the appeal memorandum was not timely filed, it was also filed with the wrong office. It was filed with the Office of the Secretary, instead of filing it at the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA).
Oppositors likewise contended that the facts proving that the subject landholdings are not being directly, exclusively and actually devoted to poultry and cattle raising are overwhelming.
First. The 06 June 1995 letter of Atty. Rafael Dayrit admitted that a greater part of the property is devoted to poultry farm and a mango orchard under varying stages of growth.
Second. The 04 September 1998 Report per ocular inspection by the representatives of the BARC, DAR, LBP showed that the first parcel was devoted to corn while the second parcel was planted with coconut and corn.
Third. The 06 September 1999 Report of MARO Agad, reporting the result of the 25 February 1999 ocular inspection, stated that Dayrit personally chose her five (5) hectares retention and five (5) hectares portion for the poultry. The 06 September 1999 MARO report confirmed that while the Dayrit was into poultry raising before 1988, yet only five (5) hectares was devoted to such business.
However, the Regional Director, in resolving the application for exclusion, considered the result of the ocular inspection conducted on the later dates — the ocular inspections conducted on 04 December 2001, 20 November 2003, and 01 October 2007 which stated among others the presence of structures found on the bigger parcel, the 21.3376 hectares.
Hence, they prayed that this Office:
1. Deny the application for exemption over the 21.3376 hectares covered by TCT No. 1804;
2. Dismiss the appeal for lack of merit; and
3. Immediately install the oppositors on the 16.6927 hectares portion covered by CLOAS.
Meanwhile, on 26 November 2010, an ocular inspection of the area was conducted by CLUPPI OCI Team together the staff and representative of the MARO of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, the landowner, Mrs. Angelina Dayrit and her counsel Atty. Velez, the oppositors led by Herdanny Norquillas, Rey Quilong and Cherry Palutan of BALAUD-Mindanao, and Jun Pandor, representative of their counsel. The OCI Team noted the following observations:
1. The topography of the subject property is gently sloping to undulating terrain.
2. The property is approximately 8 kilometers away from the Municipal Hall; 3 kilometers away from Barangay Center, and 7 kilometers away from the National highway.
3. Though the road going to the area is a "dirt road," the subject property is accessible to all kinds of land transportation vehicles;
4. According to Mrs. Dayrit they have thirteen (13) regular employees — eleven (11) laborers, one (1) supervisor and one (1) security guard;
5. The OCI team specifically noted the following observations on the two lots, viz:
On Lot No. 10457, with an area of 21.3376 hectares, covered by Title No. T-1804:
a) There were five (5) poultry houses found on the area. The first four (4) poultry houses were operating in a maximum capacity wherein each poultry house was housing 10,000 broilers, or a total of 40,000 broilers.
The fifth poultry house with a maximum capacity of 14,000 broilers was housing only 13,000 broilers. The broilers (chickens) were all 35 days old and the chickens were ready to hatch upon reaching 45-day old.
b) A guard house was seen at the back portion of the property.
c) A nipa hut occupying about 150 square meters was seen on the area near Lot 6. The nipa hut serves as the shelter/dwelling of the caretaker of the subject lands.
d) The front portion of the area was dominantly planted with mango trees. Mango trees were also seen on some portion of the property. Corn and banana trees were also seen growing on the area.
e) The adjoining properties are generally idle.
f) A creek was noted at the far end portion of the area.
On Lot No. 12413, with an area of 6.0717 hectares, covered by OCT No. T-13388:
a) The area is generally idle but there were few ipil-ipil trees and coconut trees seen on the area.
b) There was no irrigation facility seen in the area. The crops planted thereon depend on rain water.
c) According to Angelina Dayrit and her counsel, this area is a buffer zone. Accordingly, Angelina Dayrit is a chicken supplier of Gama Foods Corporation and of Magnolia Company. Among the provisions of the contract with these buyers is the observation or establishment of a buffer zone of at least three (3) kilometers from the site of the poultry to secure the chickens from pests.
The OCI team also had a dialogue with the oppositors. The oppositors informed the OCI team that though they were the CLOA holders, their CLOAs were not yet distributed to them because of the pendency of this application for exclusion. They requested that the CLOAs be distributed to them soonest.
It must be emphasized that the instant appeal stemmed from the Notice of Appeal dated 11 December 2009, filed by Angelina Dayrit on 11 December 2009, appealing the 03 December 2009 Resolution issued by the Regional Director.
Angelina Dayrit received copy of the 03 December 2009 Resolution on 11 December 2009. She filed a Notice of Appeal on the same date.
On the other hand, the oppositors received copy of the 03 December 2009 Resolution on 14 December 2009. Oppositors did not file a Notice of Appeal.
Thus, insofar as the oppositors are concerned, the 03 December 2009 Resolution had already become final. Oppositors can no longer seek relief other than what is provided for in the Order and Resolution appealed from. A party who has not appealed a decision cannot seek any relief other than what is provided in the decision appealed from — he can only advance any arguments that he may deem necessary to defeat the appellants' claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed, and he can assign errors in his brief if such is required to strengthen the views by the court a quo. (Coca-cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. vs. Garcia, 543 SCRA 364).
Thus, it is incorrect for the oppositors to pray for the denial of the application for exclusion of the 21.3376 hectares covered by TCT No. T-1804 and for their installation on the 16.6927 hectares portion covered by CLOAs.
To repeat, the 03 December 2009 Resolution was not appealed by the oppositors. Hence, they can no longer obtain affirmative relief from this Office other than what they have obtained from the Office of the Regional Director. And the relief they obtained is the coverage under CARP of the 6.0717 hectares portion embraced by OCT No. T-13388.
However, the coverage under CARP of the 6.0717 hectares is being questioned by Angelina Dayrit in the present appeal.
Pursuant to the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Luz Farms versus The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, (GR No. 86889, 04 December 1990), lands devoted to the raising of the livestock, poultry and swine are excluded from the coverage of R.A. No. 6657, thus:
"The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as laud devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).
The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word "agriculture." Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert the word "ARABLE" to distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the general classification of the word "agricultural". This proposal, however, was not considered because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).
In the interpellation, then Commissioner Regalado (now a Supreme Court Justice), posed several questions, among others, quoted as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
"Line 19 refers to genuine reform program founded on the primary right of farmers and farmworkers. I wonder if it means that leasehold tenancy is thereby proscribed under this provision because it speaks of the primary right of farmers and farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till. As also mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo, farmworkers include those who work in piggeries and poultry projects.
I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if somebody puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose hires farmworkers therein, these farmworkers will automatically have the right to own eventually, directly or ultimately or collectively, the land on which the piggeries and poultry projects were constructed. (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618)
xxx xxx xxx
The questions were answered and explained in the statement of then Commissioner Tadeo, quoted as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
"Sa pangalawang katanungan ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami nagkaunawaan. Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi namin inilagay ang agricultural worker sa kadahilanang kasama rito ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay farm worker kaya hindi kasama ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform."
Only lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising are excluded from the coverage of CARP.
Records show that in the numerous ocular inspections conducted on the subject land, the common findings of the OCI team is that agricultural activity is happening on the 6.0717 hectares portion identified as Lot No. 12413, thus:
1. February 25, 1999 OCI (covered by September 6, 1999 Memorandum):
". . . Lot 12413 containing an area of 6.0717 hectares, portion of the same is planted with corn by Norquillas clan and Eusebio Mejorada."
2. September 27 2007 OCI:
"Lot No. 12413 (under OCT No. T-13388), with an area of 6.01717 hectares has a separate title and is adjacent to the 21.3376-hectare lot (Lot No. 10457). However, this area are not devoted to any poultry or cattle raising activities or aminities. Records reveal that the area was once planted to corn (per inspection conducted on September 4, 1998).
3. November 26, 2010 OCI:
"a. The area is generally idle but there were few ipil-ipil trees and coconut trees seen on the area.
b. There was no irrigation facility seen in the area. The crops planted thereon depend on rain water.
c. According to Angelina Dayrit and her counsel, this area is a buffer zone. Accordingly, Angelina Dayrit is a chicken supplier of Gama Foods Corporation and of Magnolia Company. Among the provisions of the contract with these buyers is the observation or establishment of a buffer zone of at least three (3) kilometers from the site of the poultry to secure the chickens from pests."
The above findings show that the 6.0717 hectares are not actually, exclusively and directly used for poultry raising.
Thus, Angelina Dayrit's argument that the 6.0717 hectares portion is considered as a buffer zone to protect the poultry from any pest is negated by the findings that agricultural activity is being undertaken on that portion and that immediately on the borders of the said portion is a nipa hut which serves as the shelter and temporary dwelling place of the Angelina Dayrit's workers. For this reason, the appeal must fail.
During the CLUPPI Executive Committee on Exemption meeting on 13 May 2011, the appeal was deliberated upon.
The Executive Committee recommended for the denial of the appeal on the ground that the 6.0717 hectares portion is not actually, exclusively and directly devoted to poultry raising.
This Office agrees with the recommendation of the CLUPPI Executive Committee.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Resolution dated 03 December 2009 and Order dated 12 March 2008 issued by the Regional Director of Region X are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, June 8, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary