G.R. No. 17110: July 5, 2011

HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION and RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioners-in-Intervention, v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL (PARC); SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL MALLARI, and JULIO SUNIGA and his SUPERVISORY GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. and WINDSOR ANDAYA,Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Following the promulgation of the Courts Decision in the above-captioned case on July 5, 2011, the petitioners present for resolution several issues concerning the said Decision. To recall, in the 2011 Decision, the Court ordered, among others, that the lands subject of Hacienda Luisita Incorporateds (HLI) stock distribution plan (SDP) be placed under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP and declared that the original 6,296 qualified farmworker beneficiaries (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

ISSUES:

I. Whether or not the operative fact doctrine is applicable to the present case

II. Whether or not Sec. 31 of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 is constitutional

III. Whether or not the Court properly determined the coverage of compulsory acquisition

IV. Whether or not the matter on just compensation has been correctly passed upon by the Court

V. Whether or not the subject agricultural lands may be sold to third parties though they have not been fully paid

VI. Whether HLI violated any of the provisions under the SDP

VII. Whether or not the ruling that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI is valid

HELD:

(1) The Operative Fact Doctrine is not limited to invalid or unconstitutional laws.

Contrary to the stance of respondents, the operative fact doctrine does not only apply to laws subsequently declared unconstitutional or unlawful, as it also applies to executive acts subsequently declared as invalid. The "operative fact" doctrine is embodied in De Agbayani v. Court of Appeals, wherein it is stated that a legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with. Evidently, the operative fact doctrine is not confined to statutes and rules and regulations issued by the executive department that are accorded the same status as that of a statute or those which are quasi-legislative in nature.