Title
Heirs of Grino, Sr. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
Case
G.R. No. 165073
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2006
Juan GriAo's heirs contested land retention under PD 27 and CARL after ceding 50 hectares to DBP. SC upheld DAR's decision, ruling no retention rights due to prior land ownership, valid CLTs, and laches.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 165073)

Background of the Case

The case involves a petition for certiorari challenging decisions and resolutions by the Court of Appeals related to the agrarian reform coverage of a parcel of agricultural land that was owned by Juan Griao, Sr., who died in 1985. The contested land includes Lot 1505-B in Barangay Gua-an, Leganes, Iloilo, covering 9.35 hectares. Griao owned additional land, having mortgaged a 50-hectare parcel in Sara, Iloilo in the early 1970s, which was later ceded to the Development Bank of the Philippines to satisfy a loan obligation. Presidential Decree No. 27, issued on October 21, 1972, declared the emancipation of tenants from agricultural lands, applicable to Griao’s farm, resulting in Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) issued to his tenants.

Initial Actions and Appeals

Following the issuance of CLTs, Griao petitioned for their cancellation, arguing a lack of due process in their issuance and expressing the sentimental value of the land to his family. After his death, the DAR Regional Director dismissed the petition for cancellation, concluding that Griao could retain any land since he possessed other agricultural lands exceeding the specified retention limits. The heirs subsequently sought to retain the 9.35 hectares as per Section 6 of RA 6657, which allows landowners to retain land under certain conditions.

Decisions by the DAR and Court of Appeals

The matter advanced through various administrative orders, with the DAR confirming the issuance of CLTs to the tenants based on PD 27 and later dismissing the heirs' retention application due to standing legal principles asserting that Griao, as the original landowner, was ineligible for retention as he owned other holdings at the time PD 27 became effective. The heirs' appeal to the DAR Secretary was denied on the basis that entitlement for retention lapses when rights are not exercised under PD 27, a view upheld by the Court of Appeals in its October 2003 decision.

Final Ruling and Legal Principles

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decisions stating that the land was tenanted and thus was rightfully included under the coverage of PD 27. Furthermore, the court established that the petition for retention was barred by res judicata as prior orders had become final, highlighting that the heirs did not appeal the DAR’s original decision dismissing Griao’s petition fo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.