Department of Agrarian Reform, Quezon City and Pablo Mendoza

vs.
Romeo C. Carriedo, G.R. No. 176549

FACTS:
Pablo Mendoza (petitioner) was a tenant of the land (5.0001 of 73.3157 hectares) owned
by Roman De Jesus by virtue of a Contrato King Pamimuisan. Mendoza has been paying 25
piculs of sugar every crop year as lease rental to Roman. It was later changed to Two Thousand
Pesos (P2, 000.00) per crop year, the land being no longer devoted to sugarcane. Later that
moment, Roman died leaving the land to his surviving wife Constales, and their two sons Mario
and Antonio. Antonio executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Waiver of Right which
made Constales and Mario co-owners in equal proportion of the agricultural land left by Roman.
Mario sold 70.4788 hectares to Carriedo (respondent) with 5 separate landholding titles.
The area sold to the respondent included the land tenanted by the petitioner (the 5.0001
hectares), and the latter asserted that the sale took place without his consent. He assailed that the
sale was invalid due to such reason.
Carriedo sold all of these landholdings to the Peoples’ Livelihood Foundation, Inc.
(PLFI) represented by its president, Bernabe Buscayno. All the lands, except that covered by
TCT No. 17680, were subjected to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme and were
awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries in 1997.
The petitioner and respondent were involved in three cases concerning the land: (1)
Ejectment case which was decided by the PARAD, affirmed by the DARAB and CA, in favor of
Carriedo, (2) Redemption case which also ruled in favor of Carriedo, and (3) the Coverage Case,
where the petitioner claimed that he had been in physical and material possession of the land as
tenants since 1956, and made the land productive. The CA declared that the land should be
retained to Carriedo and his right of retention is a constitutional-guaranteed right, subject to
certain qualifications specified by the legislature. Aggrieved, Mendoza filed a motion to the SC
claiming that the CA committed an error. Hence, this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Carriedo has the right to retain the land.
RULING:
YES. The SC affirmed that Carriedo has the constitutional-guaranteed right to retain his
land pursuant to Artile XIII, Section 4. Further, Sec. 6 of RA No. 6657 provides, “Except as
otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable
family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no
case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.”
The petitioner contested that Carriedo lose his rights of retention by disposing of his
agricultural land pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA No. 6657 and that Carriedo’s alleged failure to
exercise his right of retention after a long period of time constituted a waiver of his retention
rights.
Assuming that his right of retention has commenced, the respondent cannot be said to
have neglected that right because he filed a application for retention which was even contested
by Mendoza’s son in December 13, 1971. Though Carriedo subsequently withdrew his
application, his act of filing an application for retention belies the allegation that he abandoned
his right of retention or declined to assert it.
 Moreover, Sec. 6 shows that the disposition of agricultural land is not an act constituting
waiver of the right of retention. Under the facts of this case, the reasonable reading of Sections 6,
70 and 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 clearly do not provide that a sale or disposition of land in excess
of 5 hectares results in a forfeiture of the five-hectare retention area. In relation to the
constitutional right of retention, the consequence of nullity pertains to the area/s which were
sold, or owned by the transferee, in excess of the 5-hectare land ceiling. Thus, the CA was
correct in declaring that the land is Carriedo’s retained area. The SC held that the decision of
DAR-CO for imposing a penalty against Carriedo was ultra vires, and that Carriedo did not
waive his right to retain the land, nor can he be considered to be in estoppel.