Case Digest (G.R. No. 136466)
Facts:
The Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Hon. Ernesto D. Garilao, G.R. No. 136466, November 25, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the registered co-owners (heirs) of Lot No. 166, Cadastral Survey of Orani, Bataan (about 99.1085 has.), title T-91171. The property originally belonged to spouses Antonia and the late Aurelio Reyes; Aurelio died on January 21, 1972. The heirs each received fractional shares and later sought to exercise retention rights under agrarian law.
On September 21, 1988 emancipation patents were issued to the farmer-respondents. On July 15, 1993 the heirs filed individual applications for retention under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA No. 6657), seeking up to five hectares each; on August 2, 1993 petitioners also filed a petition for cancellation of emancipation patents before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 118-BAT-93.
On October 25, 1994 the OIC-Regional Director, DAR Region III, granted petitioners’ retention applications directing segregation and other steps. Respondent farmer-beneficiaries appealed; on November 30, 1996 the DAR Secretary set aside the regional order and revoked the grants of retention, concluding petitioners owned other non‑agricultural lands (in Makati and Manila) and thus were disqualified under Letter of Instruction No. 474 (LOI No. 474) and DAR Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991.
Petitioners sought review before the Court of Appeals (CA). On April 16, 1997 the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and on December 2, 1998 denied reconsideration. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court assailing the CA deci...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did RA No. 6657 impliedly repeal or otherwise render inapplicable LOI No. 474 and DAR Administrative Order No. 4 (series 1991) so that their restrictive conditions cannot be applied to landowners’ retention rights under Section 6 of RA No. 6657?
- Does DAR Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991 have a valid statutory basis and force in relation to RA No. 6657?
- Were the DAR Secretary’s factual findings that petitioners owned other lands used for non‑agricultural purposes and derived adequate...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)