This case involved Eudosia Daez's application to exempt and retain 4.1685 hectares of riceland in Bulacan from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Her application for exemption was previously denied by DAR and upheld in appeals. She then filed an application for retention, which was initially allowed but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that exemption and retention are distinct remedies, so the denial of exemption did not preclude her application for retention. It also affirmed that landowners have a constitutional right to retain a portion of their land, and that emancipation patents issued to beneficiaries may later be cancelled if the land is found to be part of the owner's retained area.
This case involved Eudosia Daez's application to exempt and retain 4.1685 hectares of riceland in Bulacan from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Her application for exemption was previously denied by DAR and upheld in appeals. She then filed an application for retention, which was initially allowed but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that exemption and retention are distinct remedies, so the denial of exemption did not preclude her application for retention. It also affirmed that landowners have a constitutional right to retain a portion of their land, and that emancipation patents issued to beneficiaries may later be cancelled if the land is found to be part of the owner's retained area.
This case involved Eudosia Daez's application to exempt and retain 4.1685 hectares of riceland in Bulacan from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Her application for exemption was previously denied by DAR and upheld in appeals. She then filed an application for retention, which was initially allowed but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that exemption and retention are distinct remedies, so the denial of exemption did not preclude her application for retention. It also affirmed that landowners have a constitutional right to retain a portion of their land, and that emancipation patents issued to beneficiaries may later be cancelled if the land is found to be part of the owner's retained area.
This case involved Eudosia Daez's application to exempt and retain 4.1685 hectares of riceland in Bulacan from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Her application for exemption was previously denied by DAR and upheld in appeals. She then filed an application for retention, which was initially allowed but overturned on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that exemption and retention are distinct remedies, so the denial of exemption did not preclude her application for retention. It also affirmed that landowners have a constitutional right to retain a portion of their land, and that emancipation patents issued to beneficiaries may later be cancelled if the land is found to be part of the owner's retained area.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2
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.