DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v.

CARRIEDO

G.R. No. 176549 | January 20, 2016 | JARDELEZA

By: Karlos Hizon

Doctrine Section 70 of RA No. 6657

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.
FACTS

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 CT 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 Carried 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 a right to retain the land
 YES. The SC affirmed that Carriedo has the constitutional-guaranteed right to retain his
land pursuant to Article 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 Carried lose his rights of retention by disposing of his
RULING 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 an application for retention which was even
contested by Mendoza's son on December 13, 1971. Though Carried 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.

Section 70 of RA No. 6657, also referred to in Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 partly
provides:

The sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner as a consequence of

NOTES Section 6 hereof shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by
the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the
landholding ceilings provided for in this Act. Any sale or disposition of agricultural
lands after the effectivity of this Act found to be contrary to the provisions hereof
shall be null and void.