Daez vs CA

G.R. No. 133507 (February 17, 2000)

Facts:
Eudosia Daez applied for exemption of her 4.1685 hectare riceland in Brgy.
Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan being cultivated by the herein respondents. DAR
Undersecretary Jose C. Medina denied the application for exemption upon
finding that the subject land is covered under LOI 474, the petitioner's total
properties having exceeded the 7-hectare limit provided by law.
The Secretary of DAR, Benjamin T. Leong, the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court all affirmed the said Order and disregarded an Affidavit
executed by the respondents stating that they are not the tenants of the land.
Their findings was that the Affidavit was merely issued under duress. In the
meantime, Emancipation Patents (EPs) were issued to the respondents.
Undaunted, Daez next filed an application for retention of the same riceland
under R.A. No. 6657. DAR Region III OIC-Director Eugenio B. Bernardo
allowed her to retain the subject riceland but denied the application of her
children to retain three (3) hectares each for failure to prove actual tillage or
direct management thereof. This order was set aside by the DAR Secretary
Ernesto Garilao but reinstated on appeal by the Office of the President. The
Court of Appeals again reversed this Decision and ordered the reinstatement
of the previous Decision of DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao. Hence, this
Appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner can still file a petition for retention of the subject
landholdings, despite the fact that a previous decision denying the petition
for exemption had long become final and executory
Held:
It is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for
retention are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of
judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the other.
There was, thus, no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia
Daez for the retention of the subject 4.1865 hectare riceland, even after her
appeal for exemption of the same land was denied in a decision that became
final and executory.
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 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.
The issuance of EPs and CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar the
landowner from retaining the area covered thereby. Under Administrative
Order No. 2, Series of 1994, an EP or CLOA may be cancelled if the land
covered is later found to be part of the landowner's retained area.