G.R. No. 149837. July 8, 2005.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, Petitioner, vs. ESTATE OF PUREZA HERRERA, represented by Carlos Herrera, Respondent.

FACTS

Pureza Herrera owned a 113-hectare land in Toledo City. Upon the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) in 1988, she filed an application for deferment of CARP coverage, claiming the land was used for livestock raising and coffee bean harvesting. Despite this application and the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Luz Farms declaring CARL provisions on livestock farms unconstitutional, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) initiated compulsory acquisition, issuing notices of coverage and conducting an ocular inspection. Herrera subsequently filed a formal Application for Exclusion/Exemption in 1995, submitting numerous supporting documents. Meanwhile, RA 6657 was amended by RA 7881 in 1995, which expressly excluded lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. Despite these developments, the DAR proceeded with the acquisition process and even issued a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) to farmer-beneficiaries in 1996.

ISSUE

Whether the Herrera Livestock Farm is exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

RULING

Yes, the Herrera Livestock Farm is exempt. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision ordering the DAR to cease and desist from covering the estate under CARP and to recall the issued CLOA. The legal logic rests on the explicit statutory exclusion under RA 7881, which amended the CARL. This amendment categorically removed private agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. The Court found that Herrera had sufficiently established through substantial evidence—including affidavits, tax returns, and certifications from the Department of Agriculture—that the land was directly, exclusively, and actually used for livestock raising as of June 15, 1988, the critical date set by DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993. The DAR’s insistence on a business permit was deemed a mere technicality that could not override the substantive right to exemption conferred by law. Since the land qualified for exemption under the clear terms of RA 7881, all subsequent DAR actions, including the issuance of the CLOA, were void for having been performed without jurisdiction. The law in force at the time of the DAR’s continued proceedings mandated exclusion, making its compulsory acquisition unlawful.