AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-

2014
Table of Contents
RIGHT OF RETENTION .................................................................................... 1
1. Heirs of Reyes vs. Garilao (2009) ....................................................... 1
2. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Sec. of Agrarian (2007).. 2
3. Santiago vs. Ortiz-Luis (2010) ............................................................ 3
4. Heirs of Griño, Sr. vs. DAR (2006) ...................................................... 4
5. Daez vs. Sorientes (2000) .................................................................. 5

RIGHT OF RETENTION
1. Heirs of Reyes vs. Garilao (2009)

FACTS
The Heirs of Reyes (HEIRS) were registered co-owners of a 100-ha parcel of cadastral land with TCT in
Bataan. These were originally owned by Antonia and Aurelio Reyes. When Aurelio died, the widow and the eight
children divided the property.
In 1988, Garilao et. al (GARILAO) were recipients of emancipation patents of the said property as farmer
beneficiaries. About 5 years later, the HEIRS filed a petition to cancel the EPs issued by the DARAB. A month before
the said petition, they also filed an application for retention of 5 hectares each based on RA 6657, Sec. 6, which was
granted by the DAR Regional Director.
GARILAO appealed the decision of the DAR Regional Director to the DAR Secretary, who issued an order in
their favor setting aside the retention rights. The DAR Secretary found that each of the HEIRS owned, aside from the
property, other non-agricultural properties located in Makati and Manila. The DAR Secretary further held that
landowners who own lands devoted to non-agricultural purposes are presumed to derive adequate income
therefrom to support themselves and their families.
The HEIRS appealed to the CA, which however dismissed their petition. The CA ruled that Admin Order No.
4 (1991) and Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474, restricted the right of retention of landowners. It found that the
heirs did not exercise their right of retention under PD 27, and said that provisions of RA no. 6657 on retention
limits applied. According to the said issuances, landowners who own other non-agricultural lands and derived
adequate income therefrom have no right of retention.
The HEIRS now appeal the said decision.

ISSUE
WON the heirs still had retention rights either under PD 27 or RA 6657

HELD
NONE. PD27 was issued decreeing emancipation of tenants from bondage of the soil. Said law provided
that a landowner may retain an area not more than 7 hectares, if such landowner is cultivating such area or will
now cultivate it. Pres. Marcos issued LOI No. 474 which directed the Sec. of Agrarian Reform to:
“…undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less
belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from
which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.”
LOI No. 474, thus, amended PD No. 27 by removing “any right of retention from persons who own other
agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes
from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.”
Section 6 of RA No. 6657 only provided for a right of retention of 5 hectares. Thereafter, Admin Order No.
4 (1991) was issued which declared that “An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain these lands,
…If he, as of 21 October 1972, owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands; or by virtue of LOI 474,
if he, as of 21 October 1976, owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands, but additionally owned the
following:

1
 AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-
2014
1. Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and
regardless of the income derived therefrom; or
2. Lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, from which he derives
adequate income to support himself and his family.[31]
Based on the foregoing, LOI No. 474 provides for a restrictive condition on the exercise of the right of
retention, specifically disqualifying landowners who “own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they
derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” Said condition is essentially the same one
contained in Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991.
On the contention that RA 6675 repealed LOI no. 474, while RA No. 6675 is the law of general application,
LOI No. 474 may still be applied to the latter. Hence, landowners under RA No. 6675 are entitled to retain five
hectares of their landholding; however, if they too own other “lands used for residential, commercial,
industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and
their families,” they are disqualified from exercising their right of retention.

2. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Sec. of Agrarian (2007)

FACTS
Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668
hectares. A portion of the said land is planted with rice and corn, while the remaining portion is planted with coconut
trees.
Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office several petitions for exemption of
certain properties located in various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
under P.D. No. 27. Two of these petitions were denied by the Regional Director of DAR, Region V.
Archbishop appealed several times until it was raised to the CA. The CA dismissed his petition; holding that
he is only entitled to assert one right of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name. Archbishop
argues that while the lands in question are registered in his name, he holds the lands in trust for the benefit of his
followers. Archbishop further argued that the deeds of donation by which the lands were transferred to him
imposed numerous fiduciary obligations, such that he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber, or mortgage
the subject lands. By this reasoning, Archbishop concluded that he is not the “landowner” contemplated by PD 27
and Republic Act No. (RA) 6657.

ISSUE(S):
WON the Archbishop is entitled to assert only one right of retention as the subject properties are registered
in his name
WON the ruling in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. The Land Registration
Commission and the Register of Deeds of Davao City which, he cites, ruled that properties held by the Church are held
by it as a mere administrator for the benefit of the members of that particular religion is applicable

RULING:
NO. THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT OF RETENTION PER LANDOWNER, and NO MULTIPLE RIGHTS OF
RETENTION CAN BE HELD BY A SINGLE PARTY

RATIO:
The laws simply speak of the “landowner” without qualification as to under what title the land is held or
what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds
“naked title” only or can exercise all the rights of ownership.
Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the lands in question, and does not contest that
fact. For the purposes of the law, this makes him the landowner, without the necessity of going beyond the
registered titles. He cannot demand a deeper examination of the registered titles and demand further that the intent
of the original owners be ascertained and followed. To adopt his reasoning would create means of sidestepping the
law, wherein the mere act of donation places lands beyond the reach of agrarian reform.
There can be no claim of more than one right of retention per landowner. Neither PD 27 nor RA 6657 has
a provision for a landowner to exercise more than one right of retention. The law is simple and clear as to the
retention limits per landowner.

2
 AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-
2014
Archbishop would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by stating that he is a mere
administrator, but his position does not appear under the list of exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed status as
administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman
Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. does not create another definition for the term “landowner.”
Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not
exempt under the law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being deprived of land, as under both PD 27
and RA 6657, he is entitled to just compensation, which he may then use for the benefit of his followers. His situation
is no different from other landowners affected by agrarian reform––they are somewhat deprived of their land, but
it is all for a greater good.

3. Santiago vs. Ortiz-Luis (2010)

FACTS
Spouses Juan and Amada Ortiz Luis (SPOUSES) owned 7.1 hectares of tenanted rice lands in Nueva Ecija.
Despite inclusion of the property under the OLT, the SPOUSES transferred the property via a Deed of Absolute Sale
to their children Rosario, Teresita, Simplicio and Antonio. The children were able to secure a TCT issued under their
names.
The children later filed an Application for Retention under P.D. No. 27 before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Regional Office (DARRO) but were denied on the ground that the transfer was made “after October 21, 1972
which is a clear violation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.”
Separately, Amada applied for retention. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Rogelio M. Chavez
recommended the denial of Amada’s application upon the ground that “an owner of tenanted rice and corn lands
may not retain those lands if he, as of October 21, 1972, owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn
lands.” It appears that Spouses Ortiz Luis owned 178.8 hectares, only 88.5 of which were placed under OLT.
In 2000, Amada’s application for retention was granted. The PARO held that her failure to exercise
her retention rights under PD 27 entitled her to the benefit of retention under RA 6657.
This was contested by the farmer-beneficiaries who received emancipation patents over portions of the
property, namely Santiago and Gutierrez.
Upon appeal with the DAR, Secretary Pagdanganan upheld the decision of PARO holding that Amada was
entitled to retention. His successor, Sec. Pangadaman however reversed relying on LOI 474 stating that having
established that the landowners own other agricultural lands 7 hectares, they are not entitled to retention under
PD 27.
On appeal to the Office of the President (OP), the Order of PAGDANGANAN was upheld granting Amada
retention rights. This decision was upheld by the CA, with the clarification that the farmer-beneficiaries should still
be accorded their rights under RA 6657 Section 6 and DAR Admin Order No. 05-00.

ISSUE
WON Amada is entitled to retention rights

HELD
NO. SEC. PANGADAMAN’S ORDER IS REINSTATED.

RATIO
The legislative standards are set forth in Section 6 of R.A. 6657, thus:
Section 6. Retention Limits. – Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own,
or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, xxx but in no case shall
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.xxx
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner. Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.xxx
Section 6 implies that the sole requirement in the exercise of retention rights is that the area chosen by the
landowner must be compact or contiguous.

3
 AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-
2014
In the recent case of Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao, however, the Court held that a landowner’s retention
rights under R.A. 6657 are restricted by the conditions set forth in Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. which provided
the following restrictions to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform:
"1. You shall undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less
belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from
which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.” (underscoring
supplied)

DAR Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1978[18] provided for the implementing guidelines of LOI No.
474:
Tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less shall be covered by Operation
Land Transfer if those lands belong to the following landowners:
a.) Landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate
areas, whether tenanted or not, cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom;
b.) Landowners who own lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban
purposes from which they derive an annual gross income of at least five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos.
(underscoring supplied)
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Court held
that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to “new retention
rights provided for by R.A. No. 6657 . . .” In Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao, however, the Court held that the
limitations under LOI No. 474 still apply to a landowner who filed an application under R.A. 6657.
Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474 amended P.D. No. 27 by removing “any right of retention from persons
who own other agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or
other purpose from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.”
Section 9 (d) of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, on which the Court of Appeals in part anchored its ruling,
is inconsistent with P.D. No. 27, as amended by LOI No. 474, insofar as it removed the limitations to a landowner’s
retention rights.

4. Heirs of Griño, Sr. vs. DAR (2006)

FACTS
Juan Griño, Sr. (GRINO), now deceased, owned two properties: (1) a 9.35 hectare agricultural land with a
TCT in Ilolio, and (2) a 50 ha parcel of land also located in Iloilo which he, on February 8, 1972, mortgaged to DBP
as security for a loan.
The agricultural land was placed under the coverage of PD27 and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs)
covering a portion were issued to tenants, Gulmatico, et. al.
Later in the early 80’s, Grino filed a letter-petition to cancel the CLTs contending that he was deprived the
opportunity to be heard and the Riceland only covered a little over 6 hectares of the propert. In lieu of the property
covered by the CLTs, he offered 7 hectares from the said 50 ha land.
However, said property was later dationed to DBP to settle the loan.
GRINO died in 1985 before the CARL took effect. In 1989, DAR Regional Director Antonio S. Maraya acted
on GRINO’s petition for cancellation and dismissed the same relying on LOI 474, on account of his owning the 50-
ha land.
In 1997, the heirs of GRINO sought exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from the coverage of either PD27
and CARL, claiming that the 7 children-heirs were entitled to 5 hectares each pursuant to Sec 6 of the CARL. In the
meantime, Emancipation Patents were issued to the tenant-farmers.
In 1998, the DAR Regional Director Dominador Andres dismissed the application for retention, declaring
that the reckoning date of the OLT was in October 21, 1972 and not date of effectivity of the CARL (June 15, 1988).
The heirs appealed to the DAR Secretary, Hernani A. Braganza, who denied their appeal. He further declared
since GRINO, pursuant to LOI 474, “was not entitled to exercise his retention right over subject property under PD
27. As such, he is also not entitled to exercise said right under RA 6657. If Juan Griño, Sr. had no retention rights

4
 AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-
2014
under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows that his heirs, who are his successors-in-interest, cannot also exercise the same
right under PD 27 and RA 6657.”
On further appeal, the CA upheld the decision of the DAR Secretary, further holding that res judicata and
laches had already set in. The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that they were not able to participate
in the petition for cancellation of CLTs and as such they should not be bound by the decisions of DAR Regional
Director. This motion was denied.
In this petition for certiorari to the SC, the heirs also fault the CA for ignoring the “evidence” they discovered
when they had the opportunity to examine the records forwarded by the DAR to the appellate court – “that Griño
was misled into believing that [the] CLTs had been issued, when there were none, or that the [September 25, 1989]
Maraya Order denying Griño’s petition for cancellation of [the] CLTs was without legal effect – because the (1) CLTs
were inexistent, (2) he was dead by the time the Order was rendered, and the property had long passed on to his
heirs, and (3) the heirs were never notified of said order, and there is no showing that it was sent even to JuanGriño,
Sr.’s address of record either.”

ISSUE
WON the heirs may resurrect the retention issue?

HELD
NO. As the CA ruled, the heirs were guilty of laches in their attempt to “resurrect the retention issue [seven
and a half] years after its denial was decreed and came to finality.”
The DAR cannot be faulted if no substitution of parties took place when Griño died, it being the duty of the
heirs to attend to the estate of the deceased, which duty includes notification to adjudicating tribunals the fact of
death of the litigant.

5. Daez vs. Sorientes (2000)

FACTS
Eudosia Daez (DAEZ), now deceased, owned a 4-ha riceland in Meycauayan, Bulacan which was being
cultivated by respondents, Macario Sorient, et. al. under a share-tenancy system. Said land wasplaced under the the
OLT of PD27. In 1980, CLTs were issued to the tenant farmers.
In 1981, DAEZ applied for exemption of the said Riceland presenting an affidavit signed by the respondents
where the latter stated that they were not share tenants but hired laborers, and should be exempted from PD 27
due to non-tenancy. The respondents claim that the affidavit was procured under duress.
DAEZ also presented an affidavit in 1983 declaring ownership over various other properties: (1) 42
hectares of agricultural land, (2) 14 hectares of riceland, (3) 16 hectares of forestland, (4) 10 hectares of "batuhan,"
and (5) 1.8 hectares of residential lands.
In July 1987, DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina denied the application for exemption relying on LOI 474
and that the respondents were bona fide tenants. This was affirmed by Secretary Leong who disregarded the 1981
affidavit for having been executed under duress because he found that DAEZ’s son, Adriano, who was then the
incumbent Vice-Mayor of Meycauayan, pressured private respondents into signing the same.
In 1992, the CA sustained the decision of the Sec. Leong. Meanwhile, the DAR issued EPs to the respondents
and thereafter, the RD issued the corresponding TCTs.
Having been denied exemption under PD27, DAEZ then applied for retention under RA 6657. In 1994, DAR
Regional OIC-Director Eugenio Bernardo allowed DAEZ to retain the subject Riceland but he denied the application
of her eight (8) children to retain three (3) hectares each for their failure to prove actual tillage of the land or direct
management thereof as required by law.
On Appeal, DAR Secretary, set aside the Order of Bernardo stating that the 1992 Order denying exemption
under PD 27, which was affirmed by CA should be implemented.
DAEZ appealed to the Office of the President which ruled in her favor. Said decision was still reversed by
the CA upon appeal by the tenant farmers

ISSUE / RULING
(1) WON the CA properly declared that EXEMPTION from Agrarian Reform and RETENTION is substantially
the same and a denial of the application of exemption under PD27 will foreclose an application for
retention rights under the CARL

5
 AGRARIAN LAW – CASE DIGESTS 2-3 AY 1st Sem 2013-
2014

NO. EXEMPTION and RETENTION in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct concepts.
Under PD27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of tenanted rice or corn
lands. If (1) the land is not devoted to rice or corn crops; or (2) there is no system of share-crop or lease-tenancy, a
landowner may apply for exemption as the land is not covered under OLT.
PD27 also allows a landowner to retain 7 hectares of his land if his aggregate landholdings do not exceed
24 hectares. Also, LOI No. 474 clarified the effective coverage of OLT to include tenanted rice or corn lands of seven
(7) hectares or less,
Thus, on one hand, EXEMPTION from coverage of OLT lies if: (1) the land is not devoted to rice or corn
crops even if it is tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is devoted to rice or corn crops.
On the other hand, EXERCISE OF RETENTION RIGHTS requires the following: (1) the land must be devoted
to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size
of the landholding must not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24) hectares
provided that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of it consist of
"other agricultural lands".
Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the
other. There was no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for RETENTION despite her
appeal for EXEMPTION of the same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory.

(2) WON the Heirs of DAEZ may exercise their right of retention over the subject 4-ha Riceland.

YES. The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the
legislature. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner’s
dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner
afterwards, which would be a pointless process.
In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we
held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new
retention rights under R.A. No. 6657.
However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after August 27, 1985 but he had previously filed
the sworn statements required by LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of seven (7)
hectares under P.D. No.27. Otherwise, he is only entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657.
Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, defines the nature and incidents of a landowner’s right of retention. For as long as
the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a
landowner’s choice of the area to be retained, must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991,
which supplies the details for the exercise of a landowner’s retention rights, likewise recognizes no limit to the
prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded to retain other lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers.
This right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to
either stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural
land with similar or comparable features.

Finally. Land awards made pursuant to the government’s agrarian reform program are subject to
the exercise by a landowner, who is so qualified, of his right of retention.
Under P.D. No. 27, beneficiaries are issued CLTs to entitle them to possess lands. Thereafter, they are issued
Emancipation Patents (EPs) after compliance with all necessary conditions. Such EPs, upon their presentation to
the Register of Deeds, result in the issuance of the corresponding transfer certificates of title (TCT) in favor of the
beneficiaries mentioned therein .[30]

Under R.A. No. 6657, the procedure has been simplified . Only Certificates of Land Ownership Award
[31]

(CLOAs) are issued, in lieu of EPs, after compliance with all prerequisites. Thereafter, upon presentation of the
CLOAs to the Register of Deeds, TCTs are issued to the designated beneficiaries. CLTs are no longer issued.
In the instant case, the CLTs of private respondents over the subject 4.1685-hectare riceland were issued
without Eudosia Daez having been accorded her right of choice as to what to retain among her landholdings. The
transfer certificates of title thus issued on the basis of those CLTs cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of
deceased Eudosia Daez to retain the said 4.1685 hectares of riceland.