Agrarian Law Livestock Farms Exempt From CARP Coverage If Primarily Devoted To Livestock Raising Before 1988

The Supreme Court has clarified the rules on when a livestock farm may be exempt from coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Estate of Pureza Herrera (G.R. No. 149837, July 8, 2005), the Court ruled that private agricultural lands primarily devoted to livestock raising before June 15, 1988 are exempt from CARP coverage. The decision also underscored the importance of due process in agrarian reform proceedings.

Background of the Case

Pureza Herrera owned a 113.79-hectare property in Toledo City. She claimed that since 1958, the land had been used for raising cattle, carabaos, horses, goats, and pigs. When the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) took effect on June 15, 1988, Herrera filed an application with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to defer the implementation of CARP over her property.

Despite her pending application, the DAR proceeded to place the property under CARP coverage. In 1996, the DAR issued a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in favor of 72 farmer-beneficiaries covering about 101 hectares of the property.

The Legal Framework

Under the original Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657, commercial farms devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising were subject to compulsory acquisition after ten years from the law's effectivity. However, in Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR (1990), the Supreme Court declared Section 11 and related provisions unconstitutional.

Following Luz Farms, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, which provided that private agricultural lands exclusively, directly, and actually used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising as of June 15, 1988 should be excluded from CARP coverage. This was later reinforced by R.A. No. 7881 (1995), which explicitly excluded such lands from the coverage of the agrarian reform law.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Herrera property was exempt from CARP coverage because it was devoted to livestock raising before June 15, 1988. A related procedural issue was whether the DAR could place the property under CARP coverage while Herrera's application for exemption was still pending.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Herrera estate, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision that the property was exempt from CARP coverage.

On the substantive issue, the Court found that the estate presented substantial evidence that the property had been devoted to livestock raising since 1958. This included sworn statements from witnesses, a site inspection report from the Department of Agriculture, and the recommendation of the DAR's own legal officer. The Court noted that the DAR failed to rebut this evidence with contrary proof.

On the procedural issue, the Court held that the DAR should have awaited the resolution of Herrera's pending application for exemption before placing the property under CARP coverage. Issuing the CLOA while the application was pending constituted a prejudgment of the application and violated the landowner's right to due process.

The Court emphasized that while the DAR has the mandate to implement agrarian reform, this does not license it to ignore a landowner's pending application for exemption. The DAR's actions effectively placed the landowner in a "no-win situation" where complying with coverage procedures could be deemed a waiver of the exemption application.

Practical Takeaways

• Livestock farms are exempt from CARP if they were exclusively, directly, and actually used for livestock, poultry, or swine raising as of June 15, 1988.
• The exemption applies regardless of the farm's size — the key is the actual use of the land for livestock purposes before the cutoff date.
• Substantial evidence is sufficient to prove livestock raising. While documentary evidence like business permits is helpful, sworn statements, inspection reports, and other credible evidence can establish the exemption.
• The DAR must respect pending applications. Placing property under CARP coverage while an exemption application is pending violates due process and may be struck down by the courts.
• Landowners should document their land use before June 15, 1988, including livestock inventories, permits, and other records that can support an exemption claim.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.