Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., v.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform

175 SCRA 343
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989

Topic: Right of Retention

Nature of action: Petition for a writ of mandamus
Facts:
The petitioners in this case invoked the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to
owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or
intend to cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but are
occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands. The petitioners claim that they
cannot eject their tenants so they are unable to enjoy their right of retention because the
Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules required under
the above-quoted decree. The petitioners also insist that the above-cited measures are not
applicable to them because they do not own more than seven hectares of agricultural land.

Issue: Whether or not all rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27
are retained

Ruling: Yes. WHEREFORE, the Court holds as follows: All rights previously acquired by the
tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained and recognized. Landowners who were unable
to exercise their rights of retention under P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by
R.A. No. 6657 under the conditions therein prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi:

It is worth stressing at this point that all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. No. 27,
as recognized under E.O. No. 228, are retained by him even now under R.A. No. 6657. This
should counter-balance the express provision in Section 6 of the said law that "the landowners
whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area
originally retained by them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead." In case the
petitioners have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27, the Court holds that
they are entitled to the new retention rights provided for by R.A. No. 6657 which are on the
whole more liberal than those granted by the decree. The argument of some of the petitioners
that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide for
retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution is no longer tenable.
R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its
most controversial provisions. It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of
tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a
portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm provided that he had become a full-fledged
member of a duly recognized farmers' cooperative. Also, full payment of the just compensation
also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional requirement.
 Luz Farms v Secretary of DAR
175 SCRA 343
G.R. No. 86889, December 04, 1990

Topic: Raising of livestock and poultry not included in CARP

Nature of action: petition for prohibition with prayer for restraining order and/or preliminary
and permanent injunction
Facts:

Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business
and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the
enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A.
No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and
Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657.

Issue: Whether or not Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its
coverage constitutional

Ruling: No. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Sections 3(b), 11,
13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry and swine
in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance
therewith, are hereby DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.

Ratio Decidendi:

Raising of livestock and poultry is clearly not included in the definition of "Agricultural,
Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity." Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop
or tree farming. Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more
than five percent (5%) of the total investment of commercial livestock and poultry raisers.
Private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the
definition of "commercial farms" is invalid to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the
State. There is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of
agrarian reform. No land is tilled and no crop is harvested in livestock and poultry farming.
Plus, there are no tenants or landlords, only employers and employees. Liverstock and poultry
do not sprout from land nor are they "fruits of the land." And Land is not even a primary
resource in this industry.
 Heirs of Nunez v. Heirs of Villanoza
GR No. 218666, Apr 26, 2017

Topic: Right of Retention

Nature of action: Petition for Review on Certiorari
Facts:

Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez (Sebastian) owned a land with title[measuring "more or less" 2.833
hectares located at Nueva Ecija. On July 7, 1976, Sebastian mortgaged this property to GSIS
Family Bank to secure a loan. His loan matured on June 30, 1978, but the bank did nothing to
collect the payment due at that time. In 1981, tenant-farmer Gabino T. Villanoza started tilling
Sebastian's land. About 19 years after the maturity of the loan, GSIS Family Bank extrajudicially
foreclosed his mortgaged properties including the land tenanted by Villanoza. A public auction
was held and GSIS won as the highest and only bidder. Sebastian filed a complaint before the
RTC to annul the extrajudicial foreclosure sale on a ground that the action has prescribed after
10 years. While the case was pending at the RTC, the DAR sent a notice of coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to GSIS Family Bank, then landowner of the disputed
property. The government compulsorily acquired from GSIS Family Bank the land. The
Department of Agrarian Reform issued an emancipation patent or Certificate of Land
Ownership Award to Villanoza. Then, Sebastian died and his heirs substituted him and the RTC
that the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages were null and void. The heirs of
Nunez petitioners submitted a Sworn Application for Retention. However, instead of Leonilo
Sebastian, they named it Leonilo P. Nuñez. The DAR Region III Director Narciso B. Nieto denied
their application for Retention and ordered the release of Certificate of Land Ownership Award
in favor of Villanoza. Meanwhile, Villanoza registered his Certificate of Land Ownership Award
title. Regional Director Nieto partially modified his Order stating that Nunez heirs were entitled
to a retention area of not more than five (5) hectares from the total landholdings, but they
could not retain the a certain property covered as it was neither compact nor contiguous. They
were ordered to choose their retained area from the other lots of their predecessor-in-interest.
As for the Application for Retention, Secretary Pangandaman directed the cancellation of
Villanoza's Certificate of Land Ownership. Villanoza argued that the title issued to him was
already indefeasible and the land it covered was "not compact and contiguous.
Then Villanoza also died and his heirs substituted him. Secretary Pangandaman resolved to
deny Villanoza's Motion for Reconsideration. Respondents heirs of Villanoza appealed before
the Office of the President which held that the land sought to be retained "must be compact
and contiguous,"contrary to the view of the Department of Agrarian Reform. According to the
Office of the President, the proceedings before Regional Director Nieto established that Nunez
heirs had other landholdings which, taken together, exceeded the five (5)-hectare retention
limit allowed by law.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners have a right of retention over the land that is awarded to
farmer beneficiary Gabino T. Villanoza
Ruling: No. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated
September 26, 2014 and Resolution dated June 4, 2015 in CA-G.R. SP No. 130544, which
affirmed the Office of the President's Decision dated August 11, 2011 and reinstated the
Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Director's Order dated February 23, 2005, are
AFFIRMED.

Ratio Decidendi:
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657[186] gives the landowner the option to choose the area to
be retained only if it is compact or contiguous. The Department of Agrarian Reform, the Office
of the President, and the Court of Appeals have consistently found that the land subject of the
dispute is neither compact nor contiguous. It provides that if the area selected for retention is
tenanted, it is for the tenant to choose whether to remain in the area or be a beneficiary in the
same or a comparable agricultural land. Petitioners Nunez' Application for Retention stated that
Villanoza occupied the property as a tenant and farmer beneficiary. Thus, the option to remain
in the same land was for Villanoza to make. Furthermore, the heirs of a deceased landowner
may exercise the retention right only if the landowner signified his or her intention to exercise
the right of retention. However, Sebastian did nothing to signify his intent to retain the
property being tilled by Villanoza. Section 6.1 provides that the landowner's "[f]ailure to
manifest an intention to exercise his right to retain within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt
of notice of CARP coverage" is a ground for losing his or her right of retention. While all agrarian
reform programs have always accommodated some forms of retention for the landowner, all
rights of retention have always been subject to conditions. Unfortunately in this case, the
landowner has miserably failed to invoke his right at the right time and in the right moment.
The farmer beneficiary should not, in equity, be made to suffer the landowner's negligence.
Finally, the issuance of the title to Villanoza could no longer be revoked or set aside by for he
acquired the lot in good faith. Villanoza already registered his Certificate of Land Ownership
Award title under the Torrens system.