The Hacienda Luisita Case

Legal Philosophy

Submitted by: Mary Stefanie E. Cuartero

Submitted to: Atty. Dacanay

Introduction Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the Compaa General de Tabacos de Filipinas, also known as the Tabacalera, founded in 1881 by Don Antonio Lpez y Lpez, who was considered a financial genius and the most influential businessman of his generation. Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it Hacienda Luisita after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lasss. Hacienda Luisita is a sugar plantation estate located in Tarlac, Philippines. At present, Hacienda Luisita is approximately 4,915-hectare in size but it was formerly around 6,433 hectares. It is owned by the Cojuangco family.

Definition of Terms Agrarian reform - redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work Farmworkers - a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program - a Philippine state policy of agrarian reform that ensures and promotes welfare of landless farmers and farm workers, as well as elevation of social justice and equity among rural areas; it aimed for a nation with equitable land ownership and empowered agrarian reform beneficiaries while, at least, improving social lives

Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011 Facts: In 1958, the Spanish owners of Compaia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera) sold Hacienda Luisita, the sugar mill of the hacienda, to the Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and controlled by the Jose Cojuangco Sr. Group. The GSIS extended a loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale, with the condition that the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure Act. Tadeco however did not comply with this condition. In 1980, the martial law administration filed a suit before the Manila RTC against Tadeco, et al., for them to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost. But Tadeco alleged that Hacienda Luisita does not have tenants, besides which sugar lands of which the hacienda consisted are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. The Manila RTC rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the MAR. Therefrom, Tadeco appealed to the CA. In 1988, during the administration of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, the Office of the Solicitor General moved to withdraw the case against Tadeco, et al. The CA dismissed the case, subject to the Presidential Agrarian Reform Councils (PARC) approval of Tadecos proposed Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) in favor of its farmworkers. Tadeco had the option of availing stock distribution as an alternative modality to actual land transfer to the farmworkers, under RA 6657. On August 23, 1988, Tadeco organized a spin-off corporation, herein petitioner HLI, as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadeco conveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion (4,915.75 hectares) and other farm-related properties of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of stock. In 1989, some of the then farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) complement of Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the proposed HLIs Stock Distribution Option Plan (SODP). The Stock Distribution Option Agreement (SDOA) was formally entered into by Tadeco, HLI, and the qualified FWBs which provides that the farmers agree because such SDO will improve their lives and they will get greater benefits. The SDOA embodied the basis and mechanics of HLIs SDP, which was eventually approved

by the PARC after a follow-up referendum conducted by the DAR in which most of the FWBs opted to receive shares in HLI. In 1995, HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the hacienda from agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657. Sec. 65 of RA 6657 provides: Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. The DAR approved the application subject to payment of three percent (3%) of the gross selling price to the FWBs and to HLIs continued compliance with its undertakings under the SDP, among other conditions. In 1996, HLI, in exchange for subscription of shares of stocks of Centennary Holdings, Inc. (Centennary), ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to the latter. Subsequently, Centennary sold the entire 300 hectares to Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), which used it in developing an industrial complex. Later, LIPCO transferred the land to the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in payment of LIPCOs loan obligations to RCBC. Apart from the 500 hectares, another 80.51 hectares were later detached from Hacienda Luisita and acquired by the government as part of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX). Two separate petitions reached the DAR in the latter part of 2003. The first was filed by the Supervisory Group of HLI (Supervisory Group), praying for a renegotiation of the SDOA, or, in the alternative, its revocation. The second petition, praying for the revocation and nullification of the SDOA and the distribution of the lands in the hacienda, was filed by Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA). The DAR then constituted a Special Task Force (STF) to attend to issues relating to the SDP of HLI. After investigation and evaluation, the STF found that HLI has not complied with its obligations under RA 6657 despite the implementation of the SDP. On December 22, 2005, the PARC issued the assailed a resolution recalling or revoking the SDO plan of HLI. It further resolved that the subject lands be forthwith placed under the compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP.

From the foregoing resolution, HLI sought reconsideration. Its motion notwithstanding, HLI also filed a petition before the Supreme Court in light of what it considers as the DARs hasty placing of Hacienda Luisita under CARP even before PARC could rule or even read the motion for reconsideration. PARC would eventually deny HLIs motion for reconsideration. Issues: 1. Does the PARC possess jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLIs SDP? 2. Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which allows stock transfer instead of outright land transfer, unconstitutional? 3. Is the revocation of the HLIs SDP valid? Did PARC gravely abuse its discretion in revoking the subject SDP and placing the hacienda under CARPs compulsory acquisition and distribution scheme? 4. Should those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and LIPCO acquired by purchase be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution? Held: The Court denied the petition of HLI and affirmed the PARC resolution placing the lands subject of HLIs SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP, with the MODIFICATION that the original qualified FWBs were given the option to remain as stockholders of HLI. It also excluded from the mandatory CARP coverage that part of Hacienda Luisita that had been acquired by RCBC and LIPCO. (1) Does the PARC possess jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLIs SDP? Yes, the PARC has jurisdiction to revoke HLIs SDP under the doctrine of necessary implication. Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke or recall an approved SDP. Such power or authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. Following this principle, it may be stated that the conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan. To deny PARC such revocatory power would reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP, because the very

same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would be without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it. (2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which allows stock transfer instead of outright land transfer, unconstitutional? No, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is not unconstitutional. The Court actually refused to pass upon the constitutional question because it was not raised at the earliest opportunity and because the resolution thereof is not the lis mota (cause of action) of the case. For a constitutional question to be heard and decided by the Court there should be compliance with what are known as the requisites of a judicial inquiry. These requisites are the following: a. There must be an actual case or controversy; b. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; c. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and d. The constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case (the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself). Not all the foregoing requirements are satisfied in the case at bar. While there is indeed an actual case or controversy, Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Movement, Inc (FARM), composed of a small minority of 27 farmers, has yet to explain its failure to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 as early as November 21, 1989 when PARC approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or at least within a reasonable time thereafter, and why its members received benefits from the SDP without so much of a protest. It was only on December 4, 2003 or 14 years after approval of the SDP that said plan and approving resolution were sought to be revoked. Also, FARM raised the constitutionality of Sec. 31 only on May 3, 2007 when it filed its Supplemental Comment with the Court. Thus, it took FARM some eighteen (18) years from November 21, 1989 before it challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 which is quite too late in the day. The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The lis mota aspect is not present because the constitutional issue tendered is not critical to the resolution of the case. (3) Is the revocation of the HLIs SDP valid? Did PARC gravely abuse its discretion in revoking the subject SDP and placing the hacienda under CARPs compulsory acquisition and distribution scheme?

Yes, the revocation of the HLIs SDP valid. The PARC did not gravely abuse its discretion in revoking the subject SDP and placing the hacienda under CARPs compulsory acquisition and distribution scheme. The revocation of the approval of the SDP is valid because HLI violated some of the rules in the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 10 (DAO 10). HLI violated the rule on stock distribution and effectively deprived the FWBs of equal shares of stock in the corporation, for they suffered a dilution of their due share entitlement. Also, the 30-year timeframe for HLI-to-FWBs stock transfer is contrary to what Sec. 11 of DAO 10 prescribes. Section 11. Implementation/Monitoring of Plan. The approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landownerapplicant of the approval thereof by the PARC, and the transfer of the shares of stocks in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded in stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation of the stock distribution plan. Taking into account the above violations, the revocation of the SDP by PARC should be upheld. Under RA 6657, the PARC and the DAR have the power to issue rules and regulations, substantive or procedural. Being a product of such rule-making power, DAO 10 has the force and effect of law and must be duly complied with. The PARC is, therefore, correct in revoking the SDP and placing the hacienda under CARPs compulsory acquisition and distribution scheme. (4) Should those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and LIPCO acquired by purchase be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution? Yes, those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and LIPCO acquired by purchase should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution. There are two requirements before one may be considered a purchaser in good faith, namely: (1) that the purchaser buys the property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property; and (2) that the purchaser pays a full and fair price for the property at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of the claim of another. It can rightfully be said that both LIPCO and RCBC are, based on the above requirements, purchasers in good faith for value entitled to the benefits arising from such status. At the time LIPCO purchased the entire three hundred (300) hectares of industrial land, there was no notice of any supposed defect in the title of its transferor, Centennary, or

that any other person has a right to or interest in such property. The same is true with respect to RCBC. To be sure, RCBC and LIPCO knew that the lots they bought were subjected to CARP coverage by means of a stock distribution plan, as the DAR conversion order was annotated at the back of the titles of the lots they acquired. However, they are of the honest belief that the subject lots were validly converted to commercial or industrial purposes and for which said lots were taken out of the CARP coverage and, hence, can be legally and validly acquired by them. After all, Sec. 65 of RA 6657 explicitly allows conversion and disposition of agricultural lands previously covered by CARP land acquisition after the lapse of five (5) years from its award when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Moreover, DAR notified all the affected parties, more particularly the FWBs, and gave them the opportunity to comment or oppose the proposed conversion. The DAR conversion order became final and executory after none of the FWBs interposed an appeal to the CA. In this factual setting, RCBC and LIPCO purchased the lots in question on their honest and well-founded belief that the previous registered owners could legally sell and convey the lots though these were previously subject of CARP coverage. Ergo, RCBC and LIPCO acted in good faith in acquiring the subject lots. Also, both LIPCO and RCBC purchased portions of Hacienda Luisita for value. Therefore, both RCBC and LIPCO cannot be considered at fault for believing that certain portions of Hacienda Luisita are industrial/commercial lands and are, thus, outside the ambit of CARP. The PARC, and consequently DAR, gravely abused its discretion when it placed LIPCOs and RCBCs property which once formed part of Hacienda Luisita under the CARP compulsory acquisition scheme. While the assailed PARC resolutions effectively nullifying the Hacienda Luisita SDP are upheld, the revocation must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original qualified FWBs to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or not. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that in 1989, 93% of the FWBs agreed to the SDOA, which became the basis of the SDP approved by PARC. The instant petition of HLI is denied. The PARC Resolution, placing the lands subject of HLIs SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP, are affirmed with the modification that the original qualified FWBs shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) G.R. No. 171101, November 22, 2011 Facts: On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to dismiss the petition filed by HLI and affirm with modifications the resolutions of the PARC revoking HLIs Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government. The Court, however, did not order outright land distribution. The Court noted that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which they cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296 qualified farmworkersbeneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or choose actual land distribution. It thus ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names. The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court decision. Issues: 1. Is the operative fact doctrine applicable in this case? 2. Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional? 3. Cant the Court order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs SDP? 4. Is the date of the taking, for purposes of determining the just compensation, November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP? 5. Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989, and thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether they have fully paid for the lands or not?

6. Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered? Held: The Court partially granted the motions for reconsideration of respondents PARC, et al. with respect to the option granted to the original farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita to remain with petitioner HLI, which option the Court thereby recalled and set aside. It reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, and unanimously directed immediate land distribution to the qualified FWBs. (1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case? Yes, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case. The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case since the doctrine is not limited only to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be respected. (2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional? No, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is not unconstitutional. The Court maintained that the Court is not compelled to rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. The majority clarified that, in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made no ruling in favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless that there was no apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the resolution of the issue of constitutionality. Moreover, the modes of acquisition, after June 30, 2009, shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition, under RA 9700. Thus, the question of whether or not it is unconstitutional should be a moot issue. (3) Can the Court order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Luisita cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs SDP? No, the Court cannot order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs SDP. Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 hectares of agricultural land and not 6,443 hectares, then the Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 hectares of agricultural land.

Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the agrarian reform law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural lands originally held by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were supposedly covered by RA 6657. On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-hectare portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use and have been acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate SCTEX lot acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the proceeds of the sale of the 500hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land used for the SCTEX be distributed to the FWBs. (4) Is the date of the taking, for purposes of determining the just compensation payable to HLI for the remaining agricultural land that will be transferred to DAR for land distribution to the FWBs., November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP? Yes, the date of taking is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP. This is because this is the time that the FWBs were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21, 1989. Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition. Further, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the FWBs. (5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989, and thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether they have fully paid for the lands or not? No, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 has not lapsed on May 10, 1999. Thus, the qualified FWBs should not yet be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties. The awarded lands may only be transferred or conveyed after 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP) or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs have not yet been issued to the qualified FWBs in the instant case, the 10year prohibitive period has not even started. (6) Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered?

Yes, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered. The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never gain control over the subject lands given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI. The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is 33.296%. Thus, even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI stockholders, which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs because for them to have control, they need to have a stock of 50% plus 1 of the shares. In light of the foregoing consideration, the option to remain in HLI granted to the individual FWBs will have to be recalled and revoked.

Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) G.R. No. 171101, April 24, 2012 Facts: In the July 5, 2011 Decision, the Court denied the petition for review filed by HLI and affirmed the assailed Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) Resolution No. 200532-01 and PARC Resolution No. 2006-34-01 with the modification that the original 6,296 qualified farmworker-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI. Upon separate motions of the parties for reconsideration, the Court, by Resolution of November 22, 2011, recalled and set aside the option thus granted to the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI, while maintaining that all the benefits and homelots received by all the FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them. HLI invokes some grounds in support of its instant Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011. Issues: 1. Determination of the date of "taking" 2. Propriety of the revocation of the option on the part of the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI 3. Propriety of distributing to the qualified FWBs the proceeds from the sale of the converted land and of the 80.51-hectare Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX ) land

4. Just compensation for the homelots given to the FWBs Held: (1) Determination of the date of "taking" In determining the date of "taking," the Court voted 8-6 to maintain the ruling fixing November 21, 1989 as the date of "taking," the value of the affected lands to be determined by the LBP and the DAR. (2) Propriety of the revocation of the option on the part of the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI On the propriety of the revocation of the option of the FWBs to remain as HLI stockholders, the Court, by unanimous vote, agreed to reiterate its ruling in its November 22, 2011 Resolution that the option granted to the FWBs stays revoked (3) Propriety of distributing to the qualified FWBs the proceeds from the sale of the converted land and of the 80.51-hectare Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX ) land On the propriety of returning to the FWBs the proceeds of the sale of the 500hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare SCTEX land, the Court unanimously voted to maintain its ruling to order the payment of the proceeds of the sale of the said land to the FWBs less the 3% share, taxes and expenses specified in the fallo of the November 22, 2011 Resolution (4) Just compensation for the homelots given to the FWBs The distribution of homelots is required under RA 6657 only for corporations or business associations owning or operating farms which opted for land distribution. This is provided under Sec. 30 of RA 6657. Particularly: SEC. 30. Homelots and Farmlots for Members of Cooperatives. The individual members of the cooperatives or corporations mentioned in the preceding section shall be provided with homelots and small farmlots for their family use, to be taken from the land owned by the cooperative or corporation. The "preceding section" referred to in the above-quoted provision is Sec. 29 of RA 6657, which states: SEC. 29. Farms Owned or Operated by Corporations or Other Business Associations.In the case of farms owned or operated by corporations or other business associations, the following rules shall be observed by the PARC.

In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries. In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then it shall be owned collectively by the worker-beneficiaries who shall form a workers cooperative or association which will deal with the corporation or business association. Until a new agreement is entered into by and between the workers cooperative or association and the corporation or business association, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes effect between the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers cooperative or association and the corporation or business association. Since none of the above-quoted provisions made reference to corporations which opted for stock distribution under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, then it is apparent that said corporations are not obliged to provide for homelots. Nonetheless, HLI undertook to "subdivide and allocate for free and without charge among the qualified familybeneficiaries x x x residential or homelots of not more than 240 sq. m. each, with each family beneficiary being assured of receiving and owning a homelot in the barrio or barangay where it actually resides." In fact, HLI was able to distribute homelots to some if not all of the FWBs. Thus, in our November 22, 2011 Resolution, We declared that the homelots already received by the FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or to return them. The Court, by a unanimous vote, resolved to maintain its ruling that the FWBs shall retain ownership of the homelots given to them with no obligation to pay for the value of said lots. However, since the SDP was already revoked with finality, the Court directs the government through the DAR to pay HLI the just compensation for said homelots in consonance with Sec. 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution that the taking of land for use in the agrarian reform program is "subject to the payment of just compensation. DAR is ordered to compute the just compensation of the homelots in accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.

At present Recently, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) released the final list of 6,212 beneficiaries of the sprawling sugar plantation owned by the family of President Aquino, which was ordered distributed to its workers by the Supreme Court.

References: Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jul2011/gr_171101_2011.html. Retrieved 225-2013. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/nov2011/gr_171101_2011.html. Retrieved 2-252013. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_171101_2012.html. Retrieved 225-2013. Republic Act No. 6657. http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1988/ra_6657_1988.html. Retrieved 2-252013.