Case Digest (G.R. No. 204905)
Facts:
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform v. Diana H. Mendoza, G.R. No. 204905, July 14, 2021, Supreme Court First Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns retention rights over two parcels of agricultural land in Piat, Cagayan (OCT Nos. O-106 and O-107) originally registered in the name of Clifford Hawkins and placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) through a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) in 2001. On September 25, 2006, Diana H. Mendoza (respondent) filed an application for retention with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Municipal Office asserting retention over lots already awarded to farmer-beneficiaries; the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) inspected, found the lands tenanted, and recommended approval subject to tenants remaining on the land.
The DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) issued a Resolution (June 13, 2007) recommending dismissal of respondent’s application with prejudice for failure to submit required documentary requirements and because the record indicated a VOS in 2001 without any contemporaneous manifestation by the registered owner to exercise retention, which the PARO treated as an implied waiver. DAR Regional Office No. 02, through its OIC Regional Director, adopted the PARO recommendation in an Order dated May 28, 2008, denying the application for retention on the ground that Clifford’s act of placing the land under VOS without manifesting intention to retain constituted an implied waiver of retention.
Respondent appealed to then DAR Secretary Virgilio R. Delos Reyes, who denied the appeal by Order dated January 25, 2011 and also denied her motion for reconsideration; the Secretary sustained the findings that respondent failed to prove her relationship to Clifford, failed to prove Clifford’s death and any manifestation to exercise retention before August 23, 1990, and that respondent did not present sufficient evidence to support her claim as heir or landowner.
Respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 15, 2012, the CA reversed and remanded, concluding that respondent was not precluded from presenting evidence (birth certificate and parents’ death certificates) to prove her relationship to Clifford and that the identity and authority of the person who executed the 2001 VOS was crucial; the CA ordered remand to the DAR Regional Director to determine the validity of the VOS and its effects on Clifford’s heirs. The DAR Secretary’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied by Resolution dated December 3, 2012.
The DAR Secretary, acting through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 challenging the CA decision, contending the DAR’s denial was proper unde...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in remanding the case to the DAR to determine the validity of the VOS and related matters when those issues were not raised before the DAR (procedural question)?
- Was the denial of respondent’s application for retention proper and consistent with Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and applicable jurisprudence, given the record and DAR implementin...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)