Case Digest (G.R. No. 174830)
Facts:
Isabelita Vda. de Dayao and Heirs of Vicente Dayao v. Heirs of Gavino Robles, G.R. No. 174830, July 31, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are Isabelita Vda. de Dayao and the Heirs of Vicente O. Dayao; respondents are the heirs of tenant-farmer Gavino Robles (named individually in the records). The dispute arises from applications for retention filed under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27) and subsequent administrative proceedings at the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), an appeal to the Office of the President (OP), and judicial review before the Court of Appeals (CA) and this Court.
In 1976 Vicente Dayao filed a Small Landowner’s Undertaking/Application for Retention listing several tenanted rice/corn parcels (including parcels occupied by Gavino Robles) and stating his desire to retain up to 7 hectares under PD No. 27. Twenty years later, on October 16, 1996, DAR Region III’s director (Eugenio Bernardo) granted the retention application; by then Vicente had died and his heirs substituted in the action. The DAR order divided specified parcels and acreage among the heirs and separately recognized a retention right for Isabelita O. Dayao, specifying totals for both the heirs of Vicente and for Isabelita, and directing cancellation of any CLTs and assistance in executing leasehold contracts where appropriate.
Gavino Robles, a tenant on some of the parcels Vicente listed, appealed the DAR regional order. On May 19, 1997 then-DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao denied Gavino’s appeal and affirmed the regional order, directing MARO/PARO action to secure leasehold arrangements and cancellation of certain CLTs. A motion for reconsideration was denied by Secretary Horacio R. Morales. The OP, on June 30, 2003, likewise denied Gavino’s further appeal and affirmed the DAR decision.
Gavino then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On January 26, 2006, the CA reversed the DAR and OP, holding that (a) Vicente’s application for retention was “insufficient, incomplete and lacking forthrightness” because he failed to list all properties and did not reconcile discrepancies with prior extrajudicial settlements and municipal assessor certifications, and (b) Isabelita had never applied for retention and thus could not be granted retention by DAR. The CA therefore denied Vicente’s application and set aside the OP order. The CA deni...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the DAR and Office of the President orders that had granted retention to the petitioners under PD No....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)