Lawyerly

GR No. 179741

2015-12-09

HEIRS OF SPS. HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N. MARINAS v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA

JARDELEZA, J.

It is true that the right of retention is constitutionally guaranteed, subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the legislature.[51] In Daez v. Court of Appeals,[52] we said:xxx It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[53]

GR No. 200454

2014-10-22

HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ

BERSAMIN, J.

Even if we supplemented the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27, the outcome is still the same, because the Dakila property was still not within the scope of the law. For land to be covered under Presidential Decree No. 27, it must be devoted to rice or corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, the land must be excluded. Hence, exemption from coverage followed when the land was not devoted to rice or corn even if it was tenanted; or the land was untenanted even though it was devoted to rice or corn.[62] Based on these conditions, the DAR Regional Office erred in subjecting the Dakila property under the OLT.

GR No. 197486

2014-09-10

RENATO L. DELFINO v. AVELINO K. ANASAO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.[31]

GR No. 180134

2014-03-05

RAFAEL VALES v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

PD 27, which implemented the OLT Program of the government, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT Program are the following: (a) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (b) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption since the land would not be considered as covered under the OLT Program. Accordingly, a landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the entire landholding is intact and undisturbed. [47]

GR No. 179685

2013-06-19

CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA

VELASCO JR., J.

P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisite for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption. If either of these requisite is absent, the land is not covered under OLT.[35] x x x (Emphasis added.)

GR No. 171961

2008-11-28

FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON

NACHURA, J.

Without doubt, the landowner's right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite the issuance of a CLT to farmer-beneficiaries.[35] However, the cancellation of a CLT over the subject landholding as a necessary consequence of the landowner's exercise of his right of retention is within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, not the DARAB, as it does not involve an agrarian dispute.[36]

GR No. 167809

2008-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

REYES, R.T., J.

The right of retention is constitutionally guaranteed, subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[96]

GR No. 167809

2008-11-27

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO

REYES, R.T., J.

[102] G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 856.

GR NO. 132759

2005-10-25

ALEJANDRO DANAN v. CA

TINGA, J.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[18] For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and 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.[19] Therefore, there is no legal and practical basis to order the commencement of the administrative proceedings for the placement of respondent Arrastia's land under the CARP since her property's land area falls below the retention limit of five (5) hectares.

GR No. 130196

2001-02-26

LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. ADJUTO ABILLE

DE LEON, JR., J.

The portion tilled by Balbino de la Cruz having been chosen by the owner Herminio Abille as part of his seven-hectare retention, petitioners as heirs of Balbino de la Cruz are not entitled to an emancipation patent over the same. Balbino de la Cruz was entitled to an agricultural leasehold contract to the area tilled by him and this is what petitioners inherited.[31] In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land Transfer of farmer beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were issued without the landowner having been accorded her right to choose what to retain among her landholdings, we held that the Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmer-beneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to retain the said riceland.[32] Even the issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.[33] Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994[34] provides:Emancipation patents or certificates of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part of the landowner's retained area. (Emphasis supplied.) The earlier cases of Locsin, et al. v. Valenzuela, et al. and Quiban v. Butalid, which were cited by the petitioners, did not involve any issue of retention rights of the landowner, and hence, the said cases are not applicable to the case at bar.

	GR No. 179741 2015-12-09	HEIRS OF SPS. HILARIO MARINAS AND BERNARDINA N. MARINAS v. BERNARDO FRIANEZA JARDELEZA, J.
It is true that the right of retention is constitutionally guaranteed, subject to reasonable limits prescribed by the legislature.[51] In Daez v. Court of Appeals,[52] we said:xxx It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[53]
	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
Even if we supplemented the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27, the outcome is still the same, because the Dakila property was still not within the scope of the law. For land to be covered under Presidential Decree No. 27, it must be devoted to rice or corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, the land must be excluded. Hence, exemption from coverage followed when the land was not devoted to rice or corn even if it was tenanted; or the land was untenanted even though it was devoted to rice or corn.[62] Based on these conditions, the DAR Regional Office erred in subjecting the Dakila property under the OLT.
	GR No. 197486 2014-09-10	RENATO L. DELFINO v. AVELINO K. ANASAO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.[31]
	GR No. 180134 2014-03-05	RAFAEL VALES v. MA. LUZ CHORESCA GALINATO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
PD 27, which implemented the OLT Program of the government, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT Program are the following: (a) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (b) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption since the land would not be considered as covered under the OLT Program. Accordingly, a landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the entire landholding is intact and undisturbed. [47]
	GR No. 179685 2013-06-19	CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA VELASCO JR., J.
P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The requisite for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for exemption. If either of these requisite is absent, the land is not covered under OLT.[35] x x x (Emphasis added.)
	GR No. 171961 2008-11-28	FERDINAND A. DELA CRUZ v. AMELIA G. QUIAZON NACHURA, J.
Without doubt, the landowner's right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite the issuance of a CLT to farmer-beneficiaries.[35] However, the cancellation of a CLT over the subject landholding as a necessary consequence of the landowner's exercise of his right of retention is within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, not the DARAB, as it does not involve an agrarian dispute.[36]
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
The right of retention is constitutionally guaranteed, subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[96]
	GR No. 167809 2008-11-27	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. JOSEFINA R. DUMLAO REYES, R.T., J.
[102] G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 856.
	GR NO. 132759 2005-10-25	ALEJANDRO DANAN v. CA TINGA, J.
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. 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.[18] For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and 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.[19] Therefore, there is no legal and practical basis to order the commencement of the administrative proceedings for the placement of respondent Arrastia's land under the CARP since her property's land area falls below the retention limit of five (5) hectares.
	GR No. 130196 2001-02-26	LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. ADJUTO ABILLE DE LEON, JR., J.
The portion tilled by Balbino de la Cruz having been chosen by the owner Herminio Abille as part of his seven-hectare retention, petitioners as heirs of Balbino de la Cruz are not entitled to an emancipation patent over the same. Balbino de la Cruz was entitled to an agricultural leasehold contract to the area tilled by him and this is what petitioners inherited.[31] In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land Transfer of farmer beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were issued without the landowner having been accorded her right to choose what to retain among her landholdings, we held that the Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmer-beneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to retain the said riceland.[32] Even the issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.[33] Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994[34] provides:Emancipation patents or certificates of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part of the landowner's retained area. (Emphasis supplied.) The earlier cases of Locsin, et al. v. Valenzuela, et al. and Quiban v. Butalid, which were cited by the petitioners, did not involve any issue of retention rights of the landowner, and hence, the said cases are not applicable to the case at bar.

EUDOSIA DAEZ v. CA MACARIO SORIENTES