Republic v. Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. 639 SCRA 49 G.R. No. !""9#$ G.R. No. !9%!& 'anuar( %) *% R+,BLC /0 12+ ,2L,,N+S) represened b( e 5+,AR1+N1 /0 AGRARAN R+0/R) roug e 2/N. S+CR+1AR7 NASS+R C. ,ANGAN5AAN ,eiioner vs. SAL SA L8A5/R N. L/,+ AGR-BSN+SS C/R,.) C/R,.) represened b( SAL8A5/R N. L/,+) 'R.) ,residen and General anager Responden SAL8A5/R N. L/,+ AGR-BSN+SS C/R,.) represened b( SAL8A5/R N. L/,+) 'R.) ,residen and General anager ,eiioner vs. R+,BLC /0 12+ ,2L,,N+S) represened b( e 5+,AR1+N1 /0 AGRARAN R+0/R) roug e 2/N. S+CR+1AR7 NASS+R C. ,ANGAN5AAN Responden S+R+N/) '.& FACTS: Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) were plaed under t!e overage of t!e Co"pre!ensive Agrarian #efor" Law CA#L). SNLABC soug!t e$e"ption of t!eir properties% arguing t!at due to t!e ruling in t!e Luz Far"s ase% land devoted to livesto& is outside t!e overage of t!e CA#L. 'pon oular inspetion% t!e uniipal Agrarian #efor" *er (A#) found t!at one of t!e parels of land% t!e Lopez land% were e$e"pt fro" CA#L overage. T!e ot!er parel% t!e Li"ot land% was not e$e"pt. SNLABC appealed t!e +nding wit! t!e Seretar, of t!e epart"ent of Agriulture. T!e A#% !owever% ruled t!at ot! Lopez and Li"ot lands were su/et to t!e CA#L. SNLABC appealed t!e deision to t!e Court of Appeals% w!i! rendered t!e assailed deision. T!e CA a*r"ed t!e +ndings of t!e A#% t!at t!e Lopez land was e$lusivel, used for livesto&. T!e A# found t!at t!e Lopez lands were used for grazing% and t!at su! was its purpose even efore t!e Luz Far"s ruling. 0t was su*ientl, estalis!ed , testi"onies of t!e people t!ereaouts. espite t!e presene of oonut trees in t!e Lopez lands% it is still used pri"aril, for raising livesto&. T!ere are also strutures "eant for su! a purpose. T!e Li"ot lands% on t!e ot!er !and% were used ot! for oonut and ruer plantations. T!e A# found t!at it was onl, used as an e$tension of grazing land% inonsistentl, at est. Bot! t!e A# and SNLABC appealed t!e deision. 0SS'1: 2!et!er or not t!e Lopez and Li"ot Lands are under t!e overage of CA#L 31L: Bot! petitions are denied Civil Law: T!e A# argues t!at t!e ta$ delaration of t!e Lopez lands lassif, it as agriultural agriultural land. Also% t!at t!e SNLABC was inorporated after t!e i"ple"entation
of t!e CA#L s!ows t!at t!ere is an atte"pt to evade CA#L overage. 0t is% !owever% dotrine t!at ta$ delarations t!e"selves are not onlusive evidene as to t!e lassi+ation of land. Also% it is t!e atual usage of t!e land% not its lassi+ation% w!i! deter"ines its eligiilit, for CA#L. As for t!e Lopez lands% it as in!erited , t!e owner of SNLABC as livesto& land. 0ts use !as een for raising livesto& even efore t!e inorporation of SNLABC. 3ene% t!e ti"e of inorporation% and t!e ta$ delaration are irrelevant. As for t!e Li"ot lands% it is not enoug! t!at su! are used as seasonal e$tensions of grazing land. T!e livesto& are not regularl, situated in t!e land in 4uestion% ut are onl, roug!t t!ere at ti"es for grazing. 0t is land atuall, devoted to oonut and ruer. 3ene% it annot e e$e"pted.
