Case Digest (G.R. No. 235086)
Facts:
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Justiniana Itliong, David C. Dakanay and the other legitimate children of the late Lourdes Cadiz Dakanay, G.R. No. 235086, July 06, 2022, Supreme Court First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sought review of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 22 May 2017 and Resolution dated 11 September 2017 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 140066, which had reversed a DAR Secretary order and held that an 11.16885‑hectare portion of a 22.3377‑hectare agricultural parcel was outside CARP coverage as to respondents.
The disputed land is an 11.16885‑hectare portion of a 22.3377‑hectare agricultural parcel (TCT No. T‑104039) registered in the names of spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay as conjugal property. Lourdes died on 20 September 2004; by an Extrajudicial Partition dated 1 October 2004 Emigdio waived his hereditary rights in favor of their four children: David, Mejella, Phoebe and Antoinette (collectively, “respondents David et al.”), who thereby acquired the heirs’ share.
On 31 May 2005 the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) over the entire 22.3377 hectares addressed to Emigdio (received 9 June 2005). On 2 August 2005 respondents David et al. filed a Petition to Lift NOC as to their 11.16885‑hectare share, contending each heir’s share (2.7922 ha) was below the five‑hectare retention limit under Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL) and thus not subject to CARP acquisition.
Regional Director Rodolfo T. Inson denied the petition on 15 February 2006, citing a DAR memorandum concluding that only registered owners as of the effectivity of RA 6657 (15 June 1988) are entitled to five hectares retention and that heirs of landowners who died after that date are not entitled to separate five‑hectare retentions. The Regional Director denied reconsideration on 18 May 2006. Respondents appealed to the DAR Secretary.
On 13 November 2009 then‑DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman granted the appeal and lifted the NOC over the 11.16885 hectares, reasoning that coverage and owner status should be reckoned at the date the NOC was issued (31 May 2005), at which time respondents were already owners of the subject portion. Intervenor Justiniana Itliong (a tenant’s representative) filed reconsideration and earlier sought to intervene.
On 8 August 2012 DAR Secretary Virgilio De Los Reyes granted Justiniana’s reconsideration, reversed Secretary Pangandaman, and reinstated the Regional Director’s orders, holding that heirs derive retention rights from the deceased landowner (not in their own right) and that, because of conjugal property rules and Emigdio’s waiver, the family could only retain up to five hectares in the aggregate. David et al.’s motion for reconsideration was denied on 18 March 2015.
The CA (22 May 2017) reversed Secretary De Los Reyes and reinstated Secretary Pangandaman’s 13 November 2009 order, holding the NOC was erroneously issued to Emigdio for the 11.16885 hectares because respondents were already owners of...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the subject 11.16885‑hectare property is exempt from DAR coverage under RA 6657...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)