Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 192999, 18 July 2012

Facts:

On July 2, 2002, petitioner filed a complaint⁷ for unlawful occupation, damages and attorney s fees against respondents. Petitioner alleged that as of November 1995, it was the holder of TCT Nos. 112068 and 112073 covering two parcels of land within the 109-hectare land. It alleged that it had been in possession for a long time of the two lands, which had a total area of 74.3393 hectares (74-hectare land), and grew thereon export-quality banana, producing on average 11,000 boxes per week worth P1.46 million. It alleged that the DAR s August 5, 2000. Respondents admitted that petitioner was the holder of TCT Nos. 112068 and 112073, covering the 74-hectare land and that the said land produces 11,000 boxes of export-quality bananas per week. However, were acquired by the government upon the issuance of TCTs in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

During the proceedings before the Office of the Regional Adjudicator, petitioner submitted its computation of respondents production and profit share from the 109-hectare land for the years 1995 to 1999 and accordingly deposited the amount of P2.51 million.

The Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator ruled that petitioner lost its ownership of the subject land when the government acquired it and CLOAs were issued in favor of the 278 CARP beneficiaries.

Petitioner appealed to the DARAB, but the DARAB denied petitioner s appeal in a Decision dated December 11, 2006. The DARAB ruled that petitioner is unlawfully occupying the subject land; hence, its complaint against respondents for unlawful occupation lacks merit. It also ruled that petitioner is no longer entitled to possess the subject land; that petitioner lost its ownership thereof; that ownership was transferred to the 278 CARP beneficiaries; that the appeals from the Distribution Order concern distribution and will not restore petitioner s ownership; that the 278 CARP beneficiaries can now exercise their rights of ownership and possession; and that petitioner should have delivered possession of the 109-hectare land to the CARP beneficiaries on August 5, 2000 instead of remaining in possession and in control of farm operations.

Petitioner appealed to the CA. The CA in the assailed Decision affirmed the DARAB decision. 

Issue:

1. Whether or not respondents are guilty of unlawful occupation?

Ruling:

1. No, respondents are not guilty of unlawful occupation.

Article 429 of the Civil Code provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

In this case, petitioner is the farm operator and manager while respondents are the farm workers. Both parties enjoyed possession of the land. Together, they worked thereon. Before CARP, petitioner was the landowner, farm operator and manager. Respondents are its farm workers. After the deferment period, CARP finally dawned. Petitioner lost its status as landowner, but not as farm operator and manager. Respondents remained as petitioner s farm workers and received wages from petitioner. Now, the unrebutted claim of respondents in their answer and position paper is that they guarded the 74-hectare land to protect their rights as farm workers and CARP beneficiaries. They were compelled to do so when petitioner attempted to install other workers thereon, after it conspired with 67 CARP beneficiaries to occupy the 35-hectare land. They were fairly successful since the intruders were able to occupy the pumping structure. The government, including this Court, cannot condone petitioner s act to thwart the CARP s implementation. Installing workers on a CARP-covered land when the DAR has already identified the CARP beneficiaries of the land and has already ordered the distribution of the land to them serves no other purpose than to create an impermissible roadblock to installing the legitimate beneficiaries on the land. We also find the action taken by respondents to guard the land as reasonable and necessary to protect their legitimate possession and prevent precisely what petitioner attempted to do. 

Note:

Since respondents themselves have asked petitioner to resume its farm operation, petitioner s possession cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified.