Case Digest (G.R. No. 203204)
Facts:
Heirs of Romulo D. Sandueta, et al. v. Domingo Robles, et al., G.R. No. 203204, November 20, 2013, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the heirs of Romulo and Isabel Sandueta; respondents include Domingo Robles and the heirs of tenants who were awarded Emancipation Patents (EPs). The dispute concerns a 4.6523-hectare riceland portion (the subject portion) of Lot No. 3419 (total lot 13.7554 ha., TCT No. T-5988) and other agricultural lands in Dipolog City that petitioners inherited (aggregate other agricultural lands: 14.0910 ha.).The subject portion had been tenanted by Eufrecena Galeza, Teodoro Aban, and Domingo Pableo and was placed under the government’s Operation Land Transfer program implemented by Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27); the tenants were awarded EPs. On June 30, 2005 petitioners filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) District Office a petition to exercise their retention right under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657), to annul the tenants’ EPs, and to compel back rentals.
The DAR’s Provincial and Municipal officers investigated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer recommended denial of the retention petition; PARO recommended, however, that petitioners be allowed to retain 5 hectares taken from portions of Lot No. 3419 not covered by OLT. On April 5, 2006, DAR Regional Director Julita R. Ragandang issued an order adopting the PARO recommendation: she denied the petition for retention over the subject portion (concluding petitioners were absentee landowners and had no retention right over the tenanted area) but allowed Romulo Sandueta a 5-ha. retention from lands not covered by OLT. Director Ragandang relied on Letter of Instruction No. 474 (LOI 474) in determining that owners of more than seven hectares in other agricultural lands may not retain tenanted rice lands.
Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman, in DARCO Order No. RT-0911-414 (November 24, 2009), affirmed Director Ragandang’s April 5, 2006 order. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 03333; the CA in a Decision dated April 26, 2012 affirmed the DARCO Order, holding: (a) the subject portion was properly covered by the OLT Program pursuant to LOI 474; (b) petitioners do not have the absolute right to choose retention area given their ownership of 14.0910 ha. of other agricultural lands; and (c) denial of retention under Section 6, RA 6657 was proper. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the 4.6523-hectare subject portion covered by the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program such that retention under Section 6 of RA 6657 becomes the appropriate remedy?
- If the subject portion is covered by OLT, are petitioners entitled to exercise retention under Section 6 of RA 6657 despite their ownership of 14.0910 hectares of other agricultural lands in ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)