CASE DIGEST: Heirs of Grino v. DAR

 

Heirs of Juan Grino, Sr. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 165073, 30 June 2006

FACTS:

Griño was the owner of a parcel of agricultural land with  an area of 9.35 hectares. He was also the owner of a 50-hectare parcel of land which he, mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to secure the payment of a loan.

On October 21, 1972, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD 27, Operation Land Transfer.

Griño's 9.35 hectare land was placed under the coverage of PD 27 because it is tenanted riceland. The CLTs covering a portion thereof was issued in favor of his tenants.

He later filed for cancellation of the CLTs and died before DAR Regional Director dismissed his petition. His heirs sought the exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from the coverage of either PD 27 or the CARL, contending that Griño had seven children and if a landowner is entitled to 5 hectares as retention limit, the remaining land of Griño would not be enough for his children, the 50-hectare land of Griño having already been ceded to the DBP.

ISSUE:

WON Griño’s heirs have the right to retain subject land.

RULING:

The subject landholdings were covered by Operation Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 in view of the fact that the landholdings are tenanted and Griño has other landholdings with an area of 50 hectares. The conveyance of the 50 hectares landholdings in favor of DBP sometime in 1985 has no legal effect of exempting the tenanted landholdings from Operation Land Transfer considering that the conveyance happened only in 1985, several years after the subjecting of the said properties under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer.

Where a landowner is not entitled to retain land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right of retention over the same land under RA 6657. It is established that Griño was not entitled to exercise his retention right over subject property under PD 27. As such, he is also not entitled to exercise said right under RA 6657. If Griño had no retention rights under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows that his heirs, who are his successors-in-interest, cannot also exercise the same right under PD 27 and RA 6657.