Heirs of Daez vs CA, G.R. No. 133507. February 17, 2000 - CASE DIGEST

EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS, REP. BY ADRIANO D. DAEZ, petitioners,

vs.

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS MACARIO SORIENTES, APOLONIO MEDIANA, ROGELIO MACATULAD and MANUEL UMALI, respondents.

G.R. No. 133507. February 17, 2000

FACTS:

• Eudosia Daez, now deceased, was the owner of a 4.1685hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan which was being cultivated by respondents Macario Soriente, Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana and Manuel Umali under a system of sharetenancy. The said land was subjected to the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 as amended by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474. Thus, the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform acquired the subject land and issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) on December 9, 1980 to private respondents as beneficiaries.
• In their Affidavit dated October 2, 1983, Eudosia Daez and her husband, Lope, declared ownership over 41.8064 hectares of agricultural lands located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and fourteen (14) hectares of riceland, sixteen (16) hectares of forestland, ten (10) hectares of "batuhan" and 1.8064 hectares of residential lands in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Included in their 41.8064hectare landholding in Bulacan, was the subject 4,1685hectare riceland in Meycauayan.
• On July 27, 1987, DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina issued an Order denying Eudosia Daezs application for exemption upon finding that her subject land is covered under LOI No. 474, petitioner being owner of the aforesaid agricultural lands exceeding seven (7) hectares.
• On June 29, 1989, Eudosia Daez wrote a letter to DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong requesting for reconsideration of Undersecretary Medinas order. But on January 16, 1992, Secretary Leong affirmed the assailed order upon finding private respondents to be bonafide tenants of the subject land.
• Undaunted, Eudosia Daez brought her case on February 20, 1992 to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari. The Court of Appeals, however, sustained the order of Secretary Leong.
• Eudosia pursued her petition before this court but we denied it and also denied her motion for reconsideration.
• On August 6 and 12, 1992, the DAR issued Emancipation Patents (EPs) to private respondents. Thereafter, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan issued the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs).
• Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Eudosia Daez next filed an application for retention of the same riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657.
• In an order dated March 22, 1994, DAR Region III OICDirector Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed Eudosia 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. Aggrieved, they appealed to the DAR.
• On August 26, 1994, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, set aside the order of Regional Director Bernardo in a Resolution.
• Eudosia Daez filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied on January 19, 1995.
• She appealed Secretary Garilaos decision to the Office of the President which ruled in her favor. The dispositive portion of the Decision of then Executive Secretary reads:

"WHEREFORE, the resolution and order appealed from are hereby SET ASIDE and

judgment is rendered authorizing the retention by Eudosia Daez or her heirs of the

4.1685 hectare landholding subject thereof.

SO ORDERED."

• Aggrieved, private respondents sought from the Court of Appeals, a review of the decision of the Office of the President. On January 28, 1999, the said Decision of the Office of the President was reversed.

ISSUE(S):

1. W/N the finality of judgment in exemption (PD27) does preclude the subsequent institution of application for retention (RA 6657).
2. W/N the heirs of Eudosia Daez may exercise their right of retention over the subject 4.1685 riceland.
3. W/N the land awards made pursuant to the governments agrarian reform program are subject to the exercise by a landowner of his right of retention.

HELD:

1. NO

Exemption and retention in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct concepts. P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of sharecrop or leasetenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption. If either of these requisites is absent, the land is not covered under OLT. Hence, a landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the entire landholding is intact and undisturbed.

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, the requisites for the exercise by the landowner of his right of retention are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system of sharecrop or leasetenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the landholding must not exceed twentyfour (24) hectares, or it could be more than twentyfour (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".

Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage of OLT an those for the grant of an application for the exercise of a landowners right of retention, are different.

Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for retention are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for the retention of the subject 4.1865hectare riceland, even after her appeal for exemption of the same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory.

2. YES.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.

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.

Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmerbeneficiaries. 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.

3. YES.

The issuance of EPs or CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby. Under Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994, an EP or CLOA may be cancelled if the land covered is later found to be part of the landowners retained area.

A certificate of title accumulates in one document a comprehensive statement of the status of the fee held by the owner of a parcel of land. As such, it is a mere evidence of ownership and it does not constitute the title to the land itself. It cannot confer title where no title has been acquired by any of the means provided by law.

In the instant case, the CLTs of private respondents over the subject 4.1685hectare 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.