Case Summary (G.R. No. 235086)
Landholding and Succession
A 22.3377-hectare conjugal agricultural parcel in Panabo City was held under TCT No. T-104039 by spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay. Upon Lourdes’s death in September 2004, her half-share was inherited by Emigdio and their four children. Emigdio waived his hereditary rights in favor of his children via extrajudicial partition, resulting in an 11.16885-hectare share held by the children.
Notice of Coverage Issuance and Initial Denial
On 31 May 2005, the MARO issued an NOC over the entire parcel to Emigdio, the registered owner. David et al. petitioned to lift coverage over their 11.16885 hectares, asserting each heir’s share (2.7922 hectares) fell below the five-hectare retention limit. Regional Director Inson denied the petition (15 Feb 2006) based on a DAR memorandum interpreting that only landowners registered as of 15 June 1988 and their qualified children are entitled to retention rights.
Secretary Pangandaman’s Reconsideration
On appeal, DAR Secretary Pangandaman (13 Nov 2009) granted the lift for the 11.16885 hectares, reasoning that coverage is reckoned at the NOC date and that Emigdio was no longer owner of the specific portion at that time. He maintained coverage for the remaining half.
Secretary De los Reyes’ Reinstatement
DAR Secretary De los Reyes (8 Aug 2012) granted Justiana Itliong’s motion to reconsider and reinstated the original NOC orders. He held that heirs’ retention rights derive solely from their parents’ five-hectare limit and that David et al. could only retain a proportionate share of 2.5 hectares (0.625 hectares each) from the conjugal five hectares.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA (22 May 2017) reversed De los Reyes, ruling that David et al. had accrued absolute ownership rights upon intestate succession and that the NOC could not divest vested rights. It reinstated Pangandaman’s lift of coverage for the heirs’ portion and held that Itliong’s beneficiary rights to the remaining land should be respected subject to Emigdio’s retention.
Reckoning Point under RA 6657
The Supreme Court held that inclusion of land under CARP and landowner status are determined as of 15 June 1988, not the date of NOC or of owner’s death. An NOC merely initiates acquisition proceedings; it does not trigger coverage or establish ownership for retention purposes.
Retention Rights and Heirs under RA 6657 and Civil Code
Under RA 6657, original landowners may retain up to five hectares; qualified children (age ≥15 and actual tillers/direct managers as of 15 June 1988) may be awarded up to three hectares each. Children who do not meet these qualifications inherit only under Civil Code succession rules and have no separate retention limit. Harmonization of RA 6657 and the Civil Code confirms that non-qualifying heirs step into the decedent’s shoes.
Waiver of Retention Rights and Procedural Requirements
DAR AO 02-2003 requires landowner exercise of retention rights by affi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 235086)
Facts
- The subject is an 11.16885-hectare portion of a 22.3377-hectare agricultural land in Tagpore, Panabo City, covered by TCT No. T-104039, conjugal property of Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay.
- Lourdes died on 20 September 2004, leaving Emigdio and their four children (David, Mejella, Phoebe, Antoinette) as heirs; on 1 October 2004, Emigdio waived his hereditary rights in their favor via Extrajudicial Partition.
- On 31 May 2005, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) under CARP/R.A. 6657 to Emigdio, who received it on 9 June 2005.
- On 2 August 2005, David et al. petitioned to lift the NOC over their 11.16885-ha share, arguing each 2.7922-ha allotment fell below the 5-ha retention limit; they claimed entitlement to exemption under CARP.
- Regional Director Inson denied the petition (15 February 2006), citing a 2002 DAR Memorandum and the CARP Handbook: only owners as of R.A. 6657’s effectivity (15 June 1988) may claim a 5-ha retention.
- On 13 November 2009, DAR Secretary Pangandaman granted the appeal, lifting the NOC over the heirs’ share, reasoning that the reckoning date was the NOC issue date and that Emigdio was no longer owner of the 11.16885 ha.
- Intervenor Justiniana Itliong (tenant representative) moved for reconsideration; DAR Secretary De Los Reyes granted it on 8 August 2012, reinstating Inson’s Orders based on the heirs’ derivation from Lourdes’s retention rights and the conjugal 5-ha limit.
- David et al. filed a reconsideration motion, which was denied by Secretary De Los Reyes on 18 March 2015.
Procedural History
- Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 140066).
- The CA, in its Decision dated 22 May 2017, ruled in favor of David et al., reversing De Los Reyes’s Orders and reinstating Pangandaman’s 2009 Order.
- The CA denied petitioner’s mo