Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Diamond Farms Vs Diamond Digest
Diamond Farms Vs Diamond Digest
Petitioner’s Complaint
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
filed 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 Counterclaim
Respondents argued that 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 CLOAs to respondents, petitioner
continued to manage the land while paying wages them. Respondents thus demanded that their rights under the CLOAs be
established, and that the petitioner pay them their production share.
Issue:
WON respondents are guilty of unlawful occupation. NO.
Ratio:
Respondents are not guilty of unlawful occupation
The action taken by respondents to guard the land was reasonable and necessary to protect their legitimate possession
and prevent what petitioner attempted to do.
- Respondents were simply protecting their right, after the petitioner’s attempt to thwart the CARP’s
implementation. What the petitioner did was install workers which it conspired with on land already identified
as falling under CARP and having CARP-designated beneficiaries. This served as an attempted roadblock to
installing the legitimate beneficiaries on the land.