G.R. No. 204905 - Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Mendoza

Clifford Hawkins is the registered owner of two parcels of agricultural land in Piat, Cagayan, documented by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. O-106 and O-107.
In 2001, these lands were included under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) mechanism pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.

On September 25, 2006, Diana H. Mendoza, the respondent, filed an application for retention with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Municipal Office.
Although the application was filed in her name, the accompanying documents consistently showed the lands were titled in the name of Clifford Hawkins.
Respondent asserted her right over the lands by claiming to be the daughter (or heir) of Clifford, despite the lack of initial documentary evidence regarding her relationship or Clifford’s death.

The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) conducted an ocular inspection and noted that the lands were tenanted, recommending the approval of her application on a conditional basis (allowing tenants to remain).
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) issued a Resolution on June 13, 2007, recommending dismissal of the retention application on grounds including:

The absence of the statutorily required documentary evidence.
The implication that Clifford had waived his retention rights by executing the VOS without manifesting his intention to exercise such right.

DAR Regional Office No. 02, via the Regional Director, adopted the PARO’s recommendation and denied the retention application on May 28, 2008.
Respondent then elevated the matter by filing an appeal with the DAR, but on January 25, 2011, DAR Secretary Virgilio R. Delos Reyes denied the appeal, reinforcing the findings that:

Clifford did not manifest his intention to retain, and his voluntary offer constituted an implicit waiver of retention.
Respondent failed to prove her familial relationship with Clifford or that she had sufficient right to succeed his estate.

Respondent’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.
In the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision rendered on August 15, 2012, the CA remanded the case back to the DAR Regional Director, emphasizing:

The need to determine definitively who executed the voluntary offer, the authority behind it, and its impact on the rights of Clifford’s heirs, including the respondent.
The possibility for the respondent to present additional evidence (such as her birth certificate and parents’ death certificates) to substantiate her relationship with Clifford and challenge the VOS timing.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), acting on behalf of the DAR Secretary (petitioner), argued that:

The denial of the retention application was based solely on the respondent’s failure to provide the required documentation in a timely manner.
The determination of retention eligibility under R.A. No. 6657 is a technical matter within DAR’s expertise.
The VOS, being executed without any manifestation of intent to retain, necessarily foreclosed the respondent’s claim, regardless of the belated submission of certain evidences by the respondent.

Allegations that the failure to notify her to submit documentary evidence violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
A contention that the VOS was invalid because it was executed 17 years after her purported father’s death (allegedly in 1984), thus nullifying any implied waiver of retention rights on his part.
A broader assertion that a landowner (or his heirs) should not be denied the inherent right of retention even if technicalities in the process were observed.

Whether issues (specifically relating to the validity and execution of the VOS) that were not raised at the initial stage before the DAR could be raised for the first time on appeal before the Court of Appeals.
Whether the belated presentation of evidence by the respondent (namely her birth certificate and Clifford’s death certificate) satisfies the requirements for establishing her right as an heir and her entitlement to retain the land.

Whether the denial of respondent’s retention application was proper under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and the implementing rules and regulations (DAR A.O. No. 2 series of 2003).
Whether the VOS executed in 2001, without any manifestation by Clifford of his intention to exercise his right of retention, validly precluded the respondent’s right to retention even if she were established as his heir.
The proper interpretation and application of the requirement under Section 3.3 of DAR A.O. No. 2 series of 2003 which mandates that heirs must prove that the decedent manifested the intention to exercise the retention right before the cutoff date (August 23, 1990).