Case Digest (G.R. No. 218666)
Facts:
Heirs of Leonilo P. Nunez, Sr. v. Heirs of Gabino T. Villanoza, G.R. No. 218666, April 26, 2017, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the heirs of Leonilo Sebastian Nunez (substituted for the decedent owner), represented by an attorney-in-fact; respondents are the heirs of tenant-farmer Gabino T. Villanoza, represented by Bonifacio A. Villanoza.The dispute concerns a parcel of land (about 2.833 hectares) originally titled to Leonilo Sebastian Nunez. In 1976 Nunez mortgaged the land; the bank foreclosed only in 1997 and acquired title in its name. In 1981 Villanoza began tilling the land as tenant. GSIS Family Bank’s title was later cancelled when the Republic compulsorily acquired the land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP); a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was generated in Villanoza’s favor and thereafter registered as TCT No. NT-299755. Meanwhile, Nunez’s heirs filed suit in 2000 to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure; the Regional Trial Court ruled the foreclosure null by reason of prescription, this Court affirmed that nullity in Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank (511 Phil. 735, 2005), but the heirs did not execute that judgment.
In 2004 the heirs filed a Sworn Application for Retention under Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL). The DAR Regional Director initially denied retention (Sept. 2, 2004) but on reconsideration (Feb. 23, 2005) allowed retention of up to five hectares provided the retained area be compact and contiguous, and ordered issuance of the CLOA to Villanoza for the 2.833-hectare portion. The heirs appealed to the DAR Secretary who reversed (Aug. 8, 2007) and directed cancellation of the CLOA and grant of five hectares to the heirs; the Secretary later denied reconsideration (Dec. 10, 2008). The Office of the President, on appeal by Villanoza’s heirs, reversed the Secretary and reinstated the February 23, 2005 Regional Director order (Aug. 11, 2011), a ruling the Court of Appeals affirmed (Sept. 26, 2014; Resolution June 4, 2015). Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied at each level.
Petitioners then sought relief in this Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the Office of the President and DAR Regional Director orders and contending, inter alia, that (a) this Court’s earlier decision in Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank binds respondents; (b) the heirs have a right of retention over the 2.833 hectares awarded to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly exercise its appellate jurisdiction in reviewing the DAR/Office of the President orders?
- Does this Court’s prior decision in Nunez v. GSIS Family Bank bind respondents (the Villanoza heirs) or otherwise entitle petitioners to relief?
- Are petitioners entitled to exercise a right of retention under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 over the 2.833-hectare parcel awarded and titled...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)