Eudosia Daez and or her heirs, Represented by Adriano D. Daez vs.

Court of Appeals
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:
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.

http://www.lis.dar.gov.ph/documents/6746