AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 Table of Contents RIGHT OF RETENTION ........................................ .................................................................... ............................................ ................ 1 1.
Heirs of Reyes vs. Garilao Garilao (2009) (2009) ..................................................... ....................................................... .. 1
2.
Roman Catholic Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Sec. of Agrarian (2007).. 2
3.
Santiago vs. Ortiz-Luis (2010) ..................................................... ............................................................ ....... 3
4.
Heirs of Griño, Sr. vs. DAR (2006) (2006) ...................................................... ...................................................... 4
5.
Daez vs. Sorientes Sorientes (2000) ....................................................... .................................................................. ........... 5
exercise their right of retention under PD 27, and said that provisions of RA no. 6657 on retention limits applied. According to the said issuances, landowners who own other non-agricultural lands and derived adequate income therefrom have no right of retention. The HEIRS now appeal the said decision. ISSUE WON the heirs still had retention rights either under PD 27 or RA 6657 HELD
RIGHT OF RETENTION 1. Heirs of Reyes vs. Garilao (2009) FACTS The Heirs of Reyes (HEIRS) were registered co-owners of a 100-ha parcel of cadastral land with TCT in Bataan. These were originally owned by Antonia and Aurelio Reyes. When Aurelio died, the widow and the eight children divided the property. In 1988, Garilao et. al (GARILAO) were recipients of emancipation patents of the said property as farmer beneficiaries. About 5 years later, the HEIRS filed a petition to cancel cancel the EPs issued by the DARAB. A month before the said petition, they also filed an application for retention of 5 hectares each based on RA 6657, Sec. 6, which was granted by the DAR Regional Director. GARILAO appealed the decision of the DAR Regional Director to the DAR Secretary, who issued an order in their favor setting aside the retention rights. The DAR Secretary found that each of the HEIRS owned, aside from the property, other non-agricultural properties located in Makati and Manila. The DAR Secretary further held that landowners who own lands devoted to nonagricultural purposes are presumed to derive adequate income therefrom to support themselves and their families. The HEIRS appealed to the CA, which however dismissed their petition. The CA ruled that Admin Order No. 4 (1991) and Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474, restricted the right of retention of landowners. It found that the heirs did not
1
NONE. PD27 was issued decreeing emancipation of tenants from bondage of the soil. Said law provided that a landowner may retain an area not more than 7 hectares, if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. Pres. Marcos issued LOI No. 474 which which directed the Sec. of Agrarian Agrarian Reform to: “…undertake “…undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” LOI No. 474, thus, amended PD No. 27 by removing “any right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” Section 6 of RA No. 6657 only provided for a right of retention of 5 hectares. Thereafter, Admin Order No. 4 (1991) was issued which declared that “ An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain these lands, lands, …If he, as of 21 October 1972, owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands; or by virtue of LOI 474, if he, as of 21 October 1976, owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands, but additionally owned the following: 1. Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom; or
AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 2.
Lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his family.[31] Based on the foregoing, LOI No. 474 provides for a restrictive condition on the exercise of the right of retention, specifically disqualifying landowners who “own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” Said condition is essentially the same one contained in Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991. On the contention that RA 6675 repealed LOI no. 474, while RA No. 6675 is the law of general application, LOI No. 474 may still be applied to the latter. Hence, landowners under RA No. 6675 are entitled to retain five hectares of their landholding; however, if they too own other “lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families,” they are disqualified from exercising their right of retention.
fiduciary obligations, such that he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber, or mortgage t he subject lands. By this reasoning, Archbishop concluded that he is not the “landowner” contemplated by PD 27 and Republic Act No. (RA) 6657. ISSUE(S): WON the Archbishop is entitled to assert only one right of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name WON the ruling in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. The Land Registration Commission and the Register of Deeds of Davao City which, he cites, ruled that properties held by the Church are held by it as a mere administrator for the benefit of the members of that particular religion is applicable RULING: NO. THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT OF RETENTION PER LANDOWNER, and NO MULTIPLE RIGHTS OF RETENTION CAN BE HELD BY A SINGLE PARTY RATIO:
2. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Sec. of Agrarian (2007) FACTS Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. A portion of the said land is planted with rice and corn, while the remaining portion is planted with coconut trees. Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office several petitions for exemption of certain properties located in various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under P.D. No. 27. Two of these petitions were denied by the Regional Director of DAR, Region V. Archbishop appealed several times until it was raised to the CA. The CA dismissed his petition; holding that he is only entitled to assert one right of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name. Archbishop argues that while the lands in question are registered in his name, he holds the lands in trust for the benefit of his followers. Archbishop further argued that the deeds of donation by which the lands were transferred to him imposed numerous
2
The laws simply speak of the “landowner” without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds “naked title” only or can exercise all the rights of ownership. Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the lands in question, and does not contest that fact. For the purposes of the law, this makes him the landowner, without the necessity of going beyond the registered titles. He cannot demand a deeper examination of the registered titles and demand further that the intent of the original owners be ascertained and followed. To adopt his reasoning would create means of sidestepping the law, wherein the mere act of donation places lands beyond the reach of agrarian reform. There can be no claim of more than one right of retention per landowner. Neither PD 27 nor RA 6657 has a provision for a landowner to exercise more than one right of retention. The law is simple and clear as to the retention limits per landowner. Archbishop would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by stating that he is a mere administrator, but his position does not
AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 appear under the list of exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed status as administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. does not create another definition for the term “landowner.” Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being deprived of land, as under both PD 27 and RA 6657, he is entitled to just compensation, which he may then use for the benefit of his followers. His situation is no different from other landowners affected by agrarian reform––they are somewhat deprived of their land, but it is all for a greater good.
Upon appeal with the DAR, Secretary Pagdanganan upheld the decision of PARO holding that Amada was entitled to retention. His successor, Sec. Pangadaman however reversed relying on LOI 474 stating that having established that the landowners own other agricultural lands 7 hectares, they are not entitled to retention under PD 27. On appeal to the Office of the President (OP), the Order of PAGDANGANAN was upheld granting Amada retention rights. This decision was upheld by the CA, with the clarification that the farmer-beneficiaries should still be accorded their rights under RA 6657 Section 6 and DAR Admin Order No. 0500. ISSUE WON Amada is entitled to retention rights
3. Santiago vs. Ortiz-Luis (2010)
HELD NO. SEC. PANGADAMAN’S ORDER IS REINSTATED.
FACTS Spouses Juan and Amada Ortiz Luis (SPOUSES) owned 7.1 hectares of tenanted rice lands in Nueva Ecija. Despite inclusion of the property under the OLT, the SPOUSES transferred the property via a Deed of Absolute Sale to their children Rosario, Teresita, Simplicio and Antonio. The children were able to secure a TCT issued under their names. The children later filed an Application for Retention under P.D. No. 27 before the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO) but were denied on the ground that the transfer was made “after October 21, 1972 which is a clear violation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.” Separately, Amada applied for retention. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Rogelio M. Chavez recommended the denial of Amada’s application upon the ground that “an owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain those lands if he, as of October 21, 1972, owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands.” It appears that Spouses Ortiz Luis owned 178.8 hectares, only 88.5 of which were placed under OLT. In 2000, Amada’s application for retention was granted. The PARO held that her failure to exercise her retention rights under PD 27 entitled her to the benefit of retention under RA 6657. This was contested by the farmer-beneficiaries who received emancipation patents over portions of the property, namely Santiago and Gutierrez.
3
RATIO The legislative standards are set forth in Section 6 of R.A. 6657, thus: Section 6. Retention Limits. – Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own, or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, xxx but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.xxx The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner. Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.xxx Section 6 implies that the sole requirement in the exercise of retention rights is that the area chosen by the landowner must be compact or contiguous. In the recent case of Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao, however, the Court held that a landowner’s retention rights under R.A. 6657 are restricted by the conditions set forth in Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. which provided the following restrictions to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform: "1. You shall undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” (underscoring supplied) DAR Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1978 [18] provided for the implementing guidelines of LOI No. 474: Tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less shall be covered by Operation Land Transfer if those lands belong to the following landowners: a.) Landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas, whether tenanted or not, cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom; b.) Landowners who own lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive an annual gross income of at least five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos. (underscoring supplied) In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Court held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to “new retention rights provided for by R.A. No. 6657 . . .” In Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao , however, the Court held that the limitations under LOI No. 474 still apply to a landowner who filed an application under R.A. 6657. Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474 amended P.D. No. 27 by removing “any right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lan ds of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other purpose from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” Section 9 (d) of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, on which the Court of Appeals in part anchored its ruling, is inconsistent with P.D. No. 27, as amended by LOI No. 474, insofar as it removed the limitations to a landowner’s retention rights.
4
4. Heirs of Griño, Sr. vs. DAR (2006) FACTS Juan Griño, Sr. (GRINO), now d eceased, owned two properties: (1) a 9.35 hectare agricultural land with a TCT in Ilolio, and (2) a 50 ha parcel of land also located in Iloilo which he, on February 8, 1972, mortgaged to DBP as security for a loan. The agricultural land was placed under the coverage of PD27 and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) covering a portion were issued to tenants, Gulmatico, et. al. Later in the early 80’s, Grino filed a letter-petition to cancel the CLTs contending that he was deprived the opportunity to be heard and the Riceland only covered a little over 6 hectares of the propert. In lieu of the property covered by the CLTs, he offered 7 hectares from the said 50 ha land. However, said property was later dationed to DBP to settle the loan. GRINO died in 1985 before the CARL took effect. In 1989, DAR Regional Director Antonio S. Maraya acted on GRINO’s petition for cancellation and dismissed the same relying on LOI 474, on account of his owning the 50 -ha land. In 1997, the heirs of GRINO sought exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from the coverage of either PD27 and CARL, claiming that the 7 children-heirs were entitled to 5 hectares each pursuant to Sec 6 of the CARL. In the meantime, Emancipation Patents were issued to the t enant-farmers. In 1998, the DAR Regional Director Dominador Andres dismissed the application for retention, declaring that the reckoning date of the OLT was in October 21, 1972 and not date of effectivity of the CARL (June 15, 1988). The heirs appealed to the DAR Secretary, Hernani A. Braganza, who denied their appeal. He further declared since GRINO, pursuant to LOI 474, “was not entitled to exercise his retention right over subject property under PD 27. As such, he is also not entitled to exercise said right under RA 6657. If Juan Griño, Sr. had no retention rights under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows that his heirs, who are his successors-in-interest, cannot also exercise the same right under PD 27 and RA 6657.” On further appeal, the CA upheld the decision of the DAR Secretary, further holding that res judicata and laches had already set in. The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that they were not able to participate in the petition for cancellation of CLTs and as such they should not be bound by the decisions of DAR Regional Director. This motion was denied.
AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 In this petition for certiorari to the SC, the heirs also fault the CA for ignoring the “evidence” they discovered when they had the opportunity to examine the records forwarded by the DAR to the appellate court – “that Griño was misled into believing that [the] CLTs had been issued, when there were none, or that the [September 25, 1989] Maraya Order denying Griño’s petition for cancellation of [the] CLTs was without legal effect – because the (1) CLTs were inexistent, (2) he was dead by the time the Order was rendered, and the property had long passed on to his heirs, and (3) the heirs were never notified of said order, and there is no showing that it was sent even to JuanGriño, Sr.’s address of record either.” ISSUE WON the heirs may resurrect the retention issue? HELD NO. As the CA ruled, the heirs were guilty of laches in their attempt to “resurrect the retention issue [seven and a half] years after its denial was decreed and came to finality.” The DAR cannot be faulted if no substitution of parties took place when Griño died, it being the duty of the heirs to attend to the estate of the deceased, which duty includes notification to adjudicating tribunals the fact of death of the litigant.
5. Daez vs. Sorientes (2000) FACTS Eudosia Daez (DAEZ), now deceased, owned a 4-ha riceland in Meycauayan, Bulacan which was being cultivated by respondents, Macario Sorient, et. al. under a share-tenancy system. Said land wasplaced under the the OLT of PD27. In 1980, CLTs were issued to the t enant farmers. In 1981, DAEZ applied for exemption of the said Riceland presenting an affidavit signed by the respondents where the latter stated that they were not share tenants but hired laborers, and should be exempted from PD 27 due to nontenancy. The respondents claim that the affidavit was procured under duress. DAEZ also presented an affidavit in 1983 declaring ownership over various other properties: (1) 42 hectares of agricultural land, (2) 14 hectares of
5
riceland, (3) 16 hectares of forestland, (4) 10 hectares of "batuhan," and (5) 1.8 hectares of residential lands. In July 1987, DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina denied the application for exemption relying on LOI 474 and that the respondents were bona fide tenants. This was affirmed by Secretary Leong who disregarded the 1981 affidavit for having been executed under duress because he found that DAEZ’s son, Adriano, who was then the incumbent Vice-Mayor of Meycauayan, pressured private respondents into signing the same. In 1992, the CA sustained the decision of the Sec. Leong. Meanwhile, the DAR issued EPs to the respondents and thereafter, the RD issued the corresponding TCTs. Having been denied exemption under PD27, DAEZ then applied for retention under RA 6657. In 1994, DAR Regional OIC-Director Eugenio Bernardo allowed DAEZ to retain the subject Riceland but he denied the application of her eight (8) children to retain three (3) hectares each for their failure to prove actual tillage of the land or direct management thereof as required by law. On Appeal, DAR Secretary, set aside the Order of Bernardo stating that the 1992 Order denying exemption under PD 27, which was affirmed by CA should be implemented. DAEZ appealed to the Office of the President which ruled in her favor. Said decision was still reversed by the CA upon appeal by the tenant farmers ISSUE / RULING (1) WON the CA properly declared that EXEMPTION from Agrarian Reform and RETENTION is substantially the same and a denial of the application of exemption under PD27 will foreclose an application for retention rights under the CARL NO. EXEMPTION and RETENTION in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct concepts. Under PD27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of tenanted rice or corn lands. If (1) the land is not devoted to rice or corn crops; or (2) there is no system of share-crop or lease-tenancy, a landowner may apply for exemption as the land is not covered under OLT. PD27 also allows a landowner to retain 7 hectares of his land if his aggregate landholdings do not exceed 24 hectares. Also, LOI No. 474 clarified the
AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-2014 effective coverage of OLT to include tenanted rice or corn lands of seven (7) hectares or less, Thus, on one hand, EXEMPTION from coverage of OLT lies if: (1) the land is not devoted to rice or corn crops even if it is tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is devoted to rice or corn crops. On the other hand, EXERCISE OF RETENTION RIGHTS requires the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the landholding must not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24) hectares provided that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of it consist of "other agricultural lands". Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the other. There was no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for RETENTION despite her appeal for EXEMPTION of the same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory. (2) WON the Heirs of DAEZ may exercise their right of retention over the subject 4-ha Riceland.
and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a landowner’s choice of the area to be retained, must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, which supplies the details for the exercise of a landowner’s retention rights, likewise recognizes no limit to the prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded to retain other lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers. This right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to either stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. Finally. Land awards made pursuant to the government’s agrarian reform program are subject to the exercise by a landowner, who is so qualified, of his right of retention. Under P.D. No. 27, beneficiaries are issued CLTs to entitle them to possess lands. Thereafter, they are issued Emancipation Patents (EPs) after compliance with all necessary conditions. Such EPs, upon their presentation to the Register of Deeds, result in the issuance of the corresponding transfer certificates of title (TCT) in favor of the beneficiaries mentioned therein . Under R.A. No. 6657, the procedure has been simplified . Only Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) are issued, in lieu of EPs, after compliance with all prerequisites. Thereafter, upon presentation of the CLOAs to the Register of Deeds, TCTs are issued to the designated beneficiaries. CLTs are no longer issued. In the instant case, the CLTs of private respondents over the subject 4.1685-hectare riceland were issued without Eudosia Daez having been accorded her right of choice as to what to retain among her landholdings. The transfer certificates of title thus issued on the basis of those CLTs cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of deceased Eudosia Daez to retain the said 4.1685 hectares of riceland. [30]
[31]
YES. The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner’s dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process. In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657. However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after August 27, 1985 but he had previously filed the sworn statements required by LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of seven (7) hectares under P.D. No.27. Otherwise, he is only entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, defines the nature and incidents of a landowner’s right of retention. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous
6
