Case Digest (G.R. No. 165073)
Facts:
Heirs of Juan Grino, Sr. represented by Remedios C. Grino v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 165073, June 30, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the heirs of Juan Grino, Sr. (represented by Remedios C. Grino); respondent is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Grino owned Lot 1505-B (9.35 hectares, riceland in Barangay Gua‑an, Leganes, Iloilo) and a separate 50‑hectare tract in Barangay Tad‑y, Sara, Iloilo, which he mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) on February 8, 1972. Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27) took effect on October 21, 1972. Portions of the 9.35‑hectare riceland were placed under PD 27 coverage and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were later issued to tenant‑farmers.
In the early 1980s Grino filed a petition to cancel the CLTs, alleging lack of due process and offering, in lieu of the tenanted riceland, seven hectares apiece from his 50‑hectare parcel. He later executed a dacion en pago conveying the 50‑hectare tract to DBP to settle his mortgage; Grino died on July 10, 1985 and his wife died on June 22, 1988. Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL) took effect on June 15, 1988. By Order dated September 25, 1989, DAR Regional Director Antonio S. Maraya dismissed Grino’s cancellation petition, upholding the CLTs and relying on Letter of Instructions No. 474 (LOI 474), which constrained retention rights of owners who owned other agricultural lands in excess of seven hectares.
In 1996 the Land Bank informed the heirs that DAR had approved payment under PD 27. Petitioners filed an application for retention under Section 6 of RA 6657 on March 14, 1997, asserting entitlement because Grino had seven children and the 50‑hectare parcel had been ceded to DBP. Emancipation Patents were issued for the tenants on June 5 and 25, 1997. DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres dismissed the retention application by Order dated April 27, 1998, holding that the operative date was October 21, 1972 (PD 27’s effectivity) and that the 1985 conveyance to DBP did not negate Grino’s ownership status as of 1972. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 18, 1998.
Petitioners appealed to DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, who denied their appeal by Order dated September 3, 2002, reasoning that a landowner not entitled to retention under PD 27 could not avail of retention under RA 6657, and noting that heirs could not claim retention where the predecessor had none and where DAR AO 4 (1991) did not grant retention rights to children. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 73368). By Decision dated October 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DAR Secretary’s order, finding (among other things) res judicata, laches for the heirs’ long delay, and the absence of substitution of parties after Grino’s death; it denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated June 21, 2004.
Instead of a Rule 45 a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution?
- Are petitioners’ claims barred by res judicata and laches arising from the DAR’s September 25, 1989 Order and the subsequent delays?
- On the merits, could the heirs avail themselves of retention under Section 6 of RA 6657 (or otherwise) despite the prior application of PD 27 and LOI 474 and the 1985 d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)