[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
756 views2 pages

Diamond Farms Inc Vs Diamond Farm Workers

The petitioner, Diamond Farms Inc., filed a complaint for unlawful occupation against the respondent cooperative over two parcels of land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. While the petitioner had titles to the land, the titles were cancelled and replaced with new titles under the Republic of the Philippines once the land was covered by agrarian reform. The court found that the respondents were not guilty of unlawful occupation as the issuance of certificates of land ownership to the beneficiaries, who were members of the cooperative, implied that just compensation was already paid to the petitioner despite appeals, so it had already lost possession and ownership of the land.

Uploaded by

daryl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
756 views2 pages

Diamond Farms Inc Vs Diamond Farm Workers

The petitioner, Diamond Farms Inc., filed a complaint for unlawful occupation against the respondent cooperative over two parcels of land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. While the petitioner had titles to the land, the titles were cancelled and replaced with new titles under the Republic of the Philippines once the land was covered by agrarian reform. The court found that the respondents were not guilty of unlawful occupation as the issuance of certificates of land ownership to the beneficiaries, who were members of the cooperative, implied that just compensation was already paid to the petitioner despite appeals, so it had already lost possession and ownership of the land.

Uploaded by

daryl
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE TITLE DIAMOND FARMS, INC.,vs.

DIAMOND FARM
WORKERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE
G.R. NO. G. R. No. 192999
DATE H. July 18, 2012
FACTS:
Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the commercial farming of bananas. A
portion of the land it owns was placed under CARP coverage. Thus, its
certificate of title over the portions of the land under CARP were cancelled,
and new TCT’s were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
Subsequently, beneficiaries were identified, most of whom were members of
respondent cooperative. Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful occupation
against respondents, alleging that it was the lawful owner of two parcels of
land within the portions covered by the CLOA and that the said CLOAs had
yet to attain finality owing to appeals filled by petitioner. Thus, while the
beneficiaries had yet to be designated with finality, respondents refused to
do work for petitioner, and forcibly entered the land subject to the dispute
and occupied the same.
Respondents argued the indeed, petitioner had the TCT’s of the parcel of
land subject to the dispute, but these were put under the name of the
Republic upon subjecting it to CARP. Thus, despite the award of the CLOAs
to respondents, petitioner continued to manage the land while paying them
wages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are guilty of unlawful occupation?
RULING
NO. The CA found that petitioner has never sought the nullification of the
Republic’s TCTs. Further, the CA found no credible evidence relating to
proceedings for payment of just compensation. The CA held that the
issuance of the Republic’s TCTs and CLOAs in favor of the 278 CARP
beneficiaries implies the deposit in cash or LBP bonds of the amount initially
determined as compensation for petitioner’s land or the actual payment of
just compensation due to petitioner. Thus, upon it already lost possession
and ownership over the land when the payment of just compensation was
fulfilled.

It is beyond doubt that 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.
ART. 429. 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.

Being legitimate possessors of the land and having exercised lawful means to
protect their possession, respondents were not guilty of unlawful
occupation.

You might also like