Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5701) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Itliong, Dakanay and Other Legitimate Children of the Late Lourdes Cadiz Dakanay (G.R. No. 235086, July 6, 2022), the dispute involves an 11.16885-hectare portion of a 22.3377-hectare agricultural land in Tagpore, Panabo City, Davao, covered by TCT No. T-104039, previously registered in the names of Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay. Lourdes died on September 20, 2004, and by intestate succession her one-half share passed to her husband and four children—David, Mejella, Phoebe, and Antoinette. Emigdio executed an extrajudicial partition on October 1, 2004, waiving his hereditary rights in favor of the children, making each heir owner of 2.7922 hectares. On May 31, 2005, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) of RA 6657 over the entire 22.3377 hectares, received by Emigdio on June 9, 2005. On August 2, 2005, the heirs petitioned to lift the NOC over their 11.16885-hectare share, arguing each heir’s portion was Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5701) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner: Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), seeking reversal of Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (22 May 2017) and Resolution (11 September 2017) in CA-G.R. SP No. 140066 via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
- Respondents: Justiniana Itliong (intervenor, later substituted by son Georgino Itliong) and David C. Dakanay with other legitimate children of the late Lourdes Cadiz Dakanay.
- Landholding and Succession
- Property: 22.3377-hectare agricultural land in Tagpore, Panabo City, covered by TCT No. T-104039, conjugal property of Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay.
- Succession: Lourdes died on 20 September 2004; by extrajudicial partition (1 October 2004), Emigdio waived his hereditary rights in favor of their four children—David, Mejella, Phoebe, and Antoinette—each inheriting 2.7922 hectares (totaling 11.16885 ha).
- Agrarian Reform Proceedings
- Notice of Coverage (NOC): Issued by MARO on 31 May 2005 to Emigdio (received 9 June 2005), covering entire 22.3377 ha under CARP (RA 6657).
- Petition to Lift NOC: Filed 2 August 2005 by David et al. for their 11.16885-ha share, as each heir’s 2.7922 ha was below the 5-ha retention limit.
- Regional Order (15 February 2006): Regional Director Inson denied petition, relying on DAR memoranda and CARP Implementors’ Handbook—heirs of post-1988 decedents not entitled to separate retention. Motion for Reconsideration denied (18 May 2006).
- DAR Secretary Pangandaman’s Order (13 November 2009): Granted appeal of David et al., lifted NOC over 11.16885 ha share, holding coverage reckoned at date of NOC and title ownership.
- Intervention and Reversal: Justiniana Itliong moved to reconsider; DAR Secretary De los Reyes (8 August 2012) reversed Pangandaman and reinstated Inson’s orders, limiting heirs’ retention to decedent’s aggregate 5 ha. Motion for Reconsideration denied (18 March 2015).
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
- CA Decision (22 May 2017): Reversed De los Reyes, reinstated Pangandaman’s lifting of NOC over heirs’ 11.16885 ha; recognized heirs’ vested rights and invalid NOC issuance to Emigdio. CA Resolution (11 September 2017) denied DAR’s motion for reconsideration.
- Supreme Court Petition: DAR contests CA’s exemption ruling, validity of NOC issuance, and supremacy of RA 6657 over Civil Code on succession.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in holding that the 11.16885-hectare portion of TCT No. T-104039 is exempt from DAR coverage under RA 6657 and in concluding that the NOC was invalidly issued.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)