At least 250 families in Naga City and Camarines Sur will be benefited once the Supreme Court decision handed down on December 21, 2007 declaring agricultural lands belonging to the Archdiocese of Caceres not exempt from agrarian reform becomes final and executory.
This was revealed by newly-appointed DAR Regional Director Celestina “Waying” Manlagñit-Tam last week.
But a thorough scrutiny of supposed beneficiaries is likely to be undertaken yet.
The agricultural lands in question are said to be already under cultivation by farmers some of whom were not actual tenants but who forced their way into the properties on learning of the pending case. In the past unscrupulous DAR officials were reported to have encouraged non-tenants to occupy lands under CARP and even appropriated for their relatives such properties.
A total area of 268.5668 hectares is the subject of the protracted case that started in 1985 when the Archbishop filed with Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office No. 19 in Naga City several petitions for exemption of landholdings of the Archdiocese located in Naga City and several towns in Camarines Sur from coverage of the OLT under PD 27.
The Archbishop had cited that the agricultural lands in questions were donated to the Archdiocese to sustain evangelical work and that the Archbishop was merely a trustee of the properties which belonged to the Catholic Church.
The subject agricultural lands are situated at San Felipe, Pacol and Carolina in Naga City; Danawan, Libmanan; May-anao, Tigaon; San Rafael, Lagonoy; Tagas, San Jose; San Isidro, Bombon; Sta. Teresita and San Jose, Canaman and Catagbacan, Goa.
On November 6, 1986, then DAR Regional Director Juanito Lorena issued an order denying the petitions of the Archbishop.
The Archbishop appealed the order to the DAR Central Office and then Secretary Ernesto Garilao denied the appeal on December 8, 1997. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on June 10, 1998.
On February 4, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. The Archbishop then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on June 18, 1991.
The Archbishop then filed a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court and on December 21, 2007 the Highest Tribunal promulgated its decision denying the petition and affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Archbishop may have filed a motion for reconsideration thus the decision still has to be considered final and executory.
