HEIRS OF GRINO v. DAR Meanwhile, Emancipation Patents were issued to the tenants.
G.R. No. 165073/ JUNE 30, 2006 / CARPIO MORALES, J./LOI 474/AABPAYAD DAR Regional Director - dismissed the application for retention and it
NATURE Petition for Certiorari, etc.
PETITIONERS Heirs of Juan Grino, Sr. represented by Remedios Grino
RESPONDENTS Department of Agrarian Reform
FACTS.
Juan Grino was the owner of a 9.35-hectare parcel of agricultural lot. He
also owned a 50-hectare parcel of land which was mortgaged to the DBP
to secure payment of a loan.
The 9.35-hectare land was placed under the coverage of PD 27 (issued by
Marcos decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the
soil transferring them to the ownership of the land they till) on account
on which Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were issued in favor of his
tenants Gulmatico, et. al.
Grino later filed a letter-petition for the cancellation of the CLTs contending
that they were issued without giving him an opportunity to be heard:
land was the only Riceland he had, the palay was only over 6 hectares,
land had sentimental value, his predecessors might need the land to
build their homes.
In lieu of the land covered by the CLTs, he offered 7 hectares each from his
50-hectare land. Grino, however, later ceded to the DBP his 50-hectare
land via dacion en pago to settle his obligations to it.
June 1985, Grino died; June 1988, his wife also passed away leaving their
children as heirs.
September 1989, DAR Regional Director Maraya dismissed the petition of
Grino for the cancellation of the CLTs, citing LOI 474: xxx the petitioner,
Juan Grino, being an owner of fifty hectares untenanted other agricultural
lands which will not entitle him for exemption/retention pursuant to LOI
474, as implemented by MAR Memorandum Circular No. 11 dated April
21, 1978 xxx
June 1996, LBP advised the heirs of Grino to claim payment under PD 27.
March 1997, Petitioners filed with the DAR Regional Office an application
for retention of the 9.35-hectare land pursuant to Sec. 6 of the CARL
contending that Grino had seven children and if a landowner is entitled
to five hectares as retention limit, the remaining land of Grino would not
be enough for his children, the 50-hectare land of Grino having already
been ceded to the DBP.
ruled that the conveyance of DBP had no legal effect because the
conveyance occurred several years after the subjecting of the said
properties under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer.
DAR Secretary appeal denied, affirmed Regional Directors dismissal:
under DAR AO 4, no retention rights are granted to the children of
landowners.
CA affirmed DAR Secretary: from the combined application of PD 27 and
LOI 474, Grino owned 9 hectares of tenanted riceland and 50 hectares of
coconut land; heirs were barred by laches; res judicata.
Petitioners contention:
o Order of DAR Regional Director Maraya appeared late
o There was no substitution of heirs in relation to the Petition for
Cancellation of CLTs, hence, petitioners cannot be bound by the
said Order
o Addressing Order to a dead person does not constitute valid
notice to the petitioners
o Petition for Cancellation of CLTs is not tantamount to an
Application for Retention, hence, the issuance of CLTs is not a
bar the exercise of constitutionally-guaranteed right of
retention
o In Daez v. CA, the right of retention can still be exercised under
RA 6557 after such denial
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON heirs can resurrect the issue of retention. NO.
As the appellate court ruled, however, petitioners are guilty of
laches in their attempt to "resurrect the retention issue [seven and a
half] years after its denial was decreed and came to finality."
As the appellate court ruled too, the DAR cannot be faulted if no
substitution of parties took place when Grino died, it being the duty of
the heirs to attend to the estate of the deceased, which duty includes
notification to adjudicating tribunals the fact of death of the litigant.
DECISION.
Petition DISMISSED.