The date of "taking" of Hacienda Luisita's agricultural lands for agrarian reform purposes is November 21, 1989, the date PARC approved HLI's Stock Distribution Plan (SDP); the option previously granted to FWBs to remain HLI stockholders is revoked, and control over agricultural lands must be in the hands of the farmers; the FWBs are entitled to the proceeds from the sale of converted lands (less specified deductions); and HLI is entitled to just compensation from the government for the homelots distributed to the FWBs.

The case revolves around the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in Hacienda Luisita, a large sugar plantation. Instead of direct land distribution, HLI implemented a Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) in 1989, approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC). Years later, PARC revoked the SDP, leading to legal challenges by HLI. The Supreme Court initially affirmed PARC's revocation but allowed FWBs the option to remain HLI stockholders. Subsequent motions led to the revocation of this option and clarifications on just compensation and the distribution of proceeds from land sales, which are further addressed in this resolution.

• HLI, a corporate landowner, implemented a Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) as an alternative to compulsory land distribution under CARP, which was approved by PARC on November 21, 1989.
• The SDP involved distributing shares of stock in HLI to the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita.
• Subsequently, PARC issued resolutions revoking the approval of the SDP, citing HLI's failure to perform certain obligations and issues with the plan itself, such as the "man-days" scheme and the FWBs not gaining control.
• Parts of the Hacienda Luisita land were sold: 500 hectares were converted to industrial use and sold, and 80.51 hectares were acquired by the government for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX).
• HLI also distributed homelots of not more than 240 sq. m. each to qualified family-beneficiaries, free of charge.
• The Supreme Court, in its July 5, 2011 Decision, affirmed the revocation of the SDP but allowed FWBs the option to remain HLI stockholders.
• In its November 22, 2011 Resolution, the Court revoked this option, ruling that FWBs would never gain control over the agricultural lands as stockholders due to their minority share (33.296%). It also maintained that benefits and homelots received by FWBs should be respected with no obligation to return them.
• The current resolution addresses motions for reconsideration of the November 22, 2011 Resolution, focusing on the date of "taking" for just compensation, the propriety of revoking the FWBs' option, the distribution of proceeds from land sales, and just compensation for homelots.

• HLI argued that the date of "taking" for just compensation should not be November 21, 1989 (when PARC approved the SDP), but rather January 2, 2006 (when the Notice of Coverage was issued after SDP failure), because the SDP was an alternative to compulsory coverage, and FWBs were not owners/possessors at the time of SDP approval.
• HLI contended that insisting on the 1989 taking date is a deprivation of property without due process and that it should be entitled to interest on just compensation.
• HLI asserted that the Court erred in reversing its decision giving FWBs the option to remain stockholders, as this was an exercise of the FWBs' right and neither the Constitution nor CARL requires FWBs to have control over agricultural lands.
• HLI claimed that the proceeds from the sales of the 500-hectare converted lot and the 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot belong to the corporation (HLI) and not to the FWBs, and returning these proceeds to FWBs violates the Corporation Code.
• HLI argued that since homelots were not part of the 4,915.75 hectares under the SDP, their value should be paid to Tadeco (the original landowner that transferred assets to HLI) upon SDP revocation.

• Respondents Mallari, et al. argued that RA 6657 does not require FWBs opting for stock distribution to retain majority shareholding.
• Mallari, et al. contended that ordering land distribution would cause more harm than good to the people living in the hacienda and the FWBs.
• Mallari, et al. argued that if the operative fact doctrine is applicable, FWBs who relied on PARC approval should not be prejudiced by its nullification.
• Mallari, et al. suggested that those who choose land should return what they received from the SDOA to HLI for company operations, benefiting those who opt to stay with the SDO.
• Mallari, et al. posited that for those choosing land, the "taking" for just compensation should be when HLI was dispossessed of control, and payment should be turned over to HLI for the benefit of FWBs opting to stay with the SDO.
• Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) argued that HLI should not be paid just compensation at all, or if paid, it should be reckoned from November 21, 1989, at PhP 40,000 per hectare.

• What is the correct date of "taking" of the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita for the purpose of determining just compensation?
• Is the revocation of the option granted to the original FWBs to remain stockholders of HLI proper?
• Is it proper to distribute to the qualified FWBs the proceeds from the sale of the converted land (500 hectares) and the SCTEX land (80.51 hectares)?
• Is HLI entitled to just compensation for the homelots distributed to the FWBs, and if so, who should pay?

• The Court affirmed its ruling that the date of "taking" for determining just compensation is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI's SDP. This approval was akin to a notice of coverage, and it was when the lands became subject to agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme. Adhering to a later date (e.g., January 2, 2006 Notice of Coverage) would penalize FWBs by making them pay higher amortizations. The determination of the amount of just compensation is to be done by DAR and LBP, subject to review by the Special Agrarian Court (SAC).
• The Court reiterated its ruling that the option granted to FWBs to remain HLI stockholders stays revoked. This is because, under the existing share structure (FWBs holding 33.296%), the FWBs would never gain control (majority of 50% plus one share) over HLI, contrary to the agrarian reform policy that control over agricultural land must always be in the hands of the farmers.
• The Court maintained its ruling ordering the payment of the proceeds from the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and the 80.51-hectare SCTEX land to the FWBs, less the 3% share already paid to FWBs, taxes, expenses related to title transfer, and legitimate corporate expenditures by HLI and Centennary Holdings, Inc. These lands were originally agrarian-distributable, and had the SDP not been approved, they would have been distributed to the FWBs.
• The Court modified its previous rulings by ordering the government, through DAR, to pay HLI the just compensation for the 240-square meter homelots distributed to the FWBs. While HLI was not obligated under Sec. 30 of RA 6657 to provide homelots (as it opted for stock distribution under Sec. 31), HLI did distribute them. Since the SDP is revoked, and the FWBs retain the homelots without obligation to pay, HLI is entitled to just compensation from the government, consistent with Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.

• Just Compensation — The full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss, determined at the time of taking. Applied in determining that HLI is entitled to payment for the lands taken for agrarian reform and for the homelots distributed, with the value to be reckoned from the date of taking.
• Date of Taking — The time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, or when title is transferred, or when lands are voluntarily offered and approved for CARP coverage (like SDP approval). Applied to fix November 21, 1989 (SDP approval date) as the date of taking for Hacienda Luisita agricultural lands, as this was when the government officially confirmed CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, akin to a notice of coverage.
• Agrarian Reform Policy on Farmer Control — The principle that control over agricultural land must always be in the hands of the farmers, whether through direct or collective ownership. Applied to justify the revocation of the FWBs' option to remain HLI stockholders, as their minority shareholding (33.296%) would never grant them control over HLI and, consequently, the land.
• Social Justice in Agrarian Reform — The constitutional mandate to tilt the balance in favor of the poor and underprivileged in the interpretation of agrarian laws, while also ensuring equity for all parties. Invoked in resolving doubts in favor of FWBs regarding the date of taking and in ensuring they benefit from the proceeds of sold agrarian lands.
• Prohibition on Second Motion for Reconsideration (Rules of Court, Rule 52, Sec. 2; Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 15, Sec. 3) — A rule stating that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained, except in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc. Mentioned by the Court as generally applicable but still proceeded to examine the arguments one last time.
• Ownership (Civil Code concept) — A relation in law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by law or the concurrence with the rights of another, with attributes like jus utendi, fruendi, abutendi, disponendi, and vindicandi. Applied to explain that when Tadeco transferred lands to HLI, Tadeco was dispossessed of ownership attributes, and HLI became the owner, even if Tadeco held majority shares in HLI.

• "The policy on agrarian reform is that control over the agricultural land must always be in the hands of the farmers."
• "The approval [of the SDP] is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition."
• "[E]ven if it is the government which will pay the just compensation to HLI, this will also affect the FWBs as they will be paying higher amortizations to the government if the ‘taking' will be considered to have taken place only on January 2, 2006."
• "There is an aphorism that 'what has been done can no longer be undone.' That may be true, but not in this case. The SDP was approved by PARC even if the qualified FWBs did not and will not have majority stockholdings in HLI, contrary to the obvious policy by the government on agrarian reform. Such an adverse situation for the FWBs will not and should not be permitted to stand."

• Perez-Rosario v. CA — Cited for the principle that in agrarian disputes, social justice edicts command tilting the balance in favor of the poor and underprivileged when reasonable doubt arises in law interpretation, but without sanctioning illegal acts or denying justice to landowners.
• Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco — Cited for the definition of "time of taking" as when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic. The Court clarified that "taking" also occurs when lands are voluntarily offered and approved by PARC for CARP coverage via stock distribution.
• Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. LBP — Cited by analogy to support the Supreme Court's authority to rule on the reckoning date of "taking" based on records, despite SACs having original/exclusive jurisdiction over just compensation determination, to avoid unnecessary delay and undue hardship.
• Tatad v. Garcia — Cited for the definition of ownership and its attributes, used to explain that Tadeco was dispossessed of ownership when it transferred lands to HLI.

• 1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 4 — Mandates the State to undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and farmworkers to own lands they till or receive a just share of fruits, subject to just compensation. Relevance: Underpins the entire agrarian reform process in Hacienda Luisita, the requirement for just compensation, and the policy of farmer ownership/control.
• Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), Section 2 — Declaration of Principles and Policies, emphasizing equitable land distribution and ownership to improve farmers' lives. Relevance: Reinforces the constitutional mandate for agrarian reform and farmer empowerment.
• Republic Act No. 6657, Section 29 — Governs farms owned or operated by corporations, generally requiring direct distribution to individual worker-beneficiaries, or collective ownership through a cooperative/association if division is not feasible. Relevance: Discussed in relation to collective ownership and homelot distribution.
• Republic Act No. 6657, Section 30 — Provides for homelots and farmlots for members of cooperatives/corporations mentioned in Sec. 29. Relevance: The Court noted HLI was not strictly obliged to provide homelots under this section as it opted for Sec. 31 (SDP), but since HLI did, it is entitled to just compensation.
• Republic Act No. 6657, Section 31 — Allows corporate landowners to opt for stock distribution. States that upon DAR certification, corporations may give qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase capital stock proportionate to agricultural land value. Relevance: This was the provision under which HLI's SDP was created. The Court emphasized the policy that farmers should own a majority of shares to ensure control.
• Rules of Court, Rule 52, Section 2 — Prohibition on second motion for reconsideration. Relevance: The Court noted this rule but still addressed the merits of the motions.
• Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 15, Section 3 — Prohibition on second motion for reconsideration, with exceptions. Relevance: Similar to Rule 52, Sec. 2, noted by the Court.

• Justice Arturo D. Brion (Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion) — Concurred with the illegality of the SDP and the November 21, 1989 taking date. Differed on the consequences of PARC's revocation, arguing for mutual restitution based on the SDP's nullity from the beginning. Argued HLI was a possessor in good faith and entitled to indemnity for improvements under Article 448 of the Civil Code. Proposed that homelots granted be considered compulsory acquisitions subject to just compensation. Believed no interest on just compensation is due as HLI never lost possession.
• Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion) — Concurred with subjecting HLI lands to compulsory distribution. Dissented on the Court pegging the date of taking, arguing this is a factual matter for the RTC-SAC. Maintained that HLI should be compensated for the fair market value of homelots. Argued against the Court creating issues sua sponte like the date of taking when not properly raised by parties, and that haste in land distribution should not sacrifice HLI's right to fair and prompt determination of just compensation by the proper adjudicatory bodies.
• Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Separate Opinion - Concurring and Dissenting) — Agreed lands should be distributed to farmers. Maintained her previous position that HLI is entitled to just compensation reckoned at the time of actual taking (notice of coverage), consistent with uniform jurisprudence, not the 1989 SDP approval date. However, given the lack of full substantiation and factual circumstances, joined Justice Bersamin's position to remand the issue of determining just compensation (including the time of taking) to the DAR and ultimately the RTC-SAC. Emphasized that the remand for just compensation determination should not hinder immediate land distribution.