G.R. No. 235086 . July 06, 2022.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PETITIONER, VS. JUSTINIANA ITLIONG, DAVID C. DAKANAY AND THE OTHER LEGITIMATE CHILDREN OF THE LATE LOURDES CADIZ DAKANAY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves an 11.16885-hectare portion of a 22.3377-hectare agricultural land in Panabo City, Davao, conjugally owned by Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay. Lourdes died on September 20, 2004. Her heirs—her husband and four children—inherited her share. Emigdio waived his hereditary rights in favor of the children via an Extrajudicial Partition dated October 1, 2004. On May 31, 2005, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) over the entire 22.3377 hectares, addressed to Emigdio. The children, respondents David Dakanay et al., petitioned to lift the NOC over their 11.16885-hectare share, arguing each heir’s portion (2.7922 hectares) was below the five-hectare retention limit under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL). The DAR Regional Director denied the petition, ruling that only landowners as of June 15, 1988 (CARL’s effectivity) are entitled to individual retention, and heirs succeeding after that date merely step into the shoes of the deceased, collectively sharing the decedent’s single five-hectare retention right.

ISSUE

Whether the heirs of a landowner who died after June 15, 1988, are each entitled to a separate five-hectare retention right over the inherited agricultural land, or whether they collectively share only one five-hectare retention right derived from the deceased original owner.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the heirs are NOT each entitled to a separate five-hectare retention right. They collectively share only one retention right derived from the deceased original landowner. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the right of retention is a personal statutory privilege granted to the landowner, not a property right that automatically multiplies upon succession. The Court emphasized that the reckoning date for determining coverage and retention rights under CARL is its effectivity on June 15, 1988. As of that date, all agricultural lands in excess of the retention limits were deemed covered by the program by operation of law. Since Lourdes died after this critical date, the land was already under the coverage ambit of CARP at the time of her death. Her heirs merely succeeded to her rights and obligations, including her single retention entitlement. To rule otherwise would allow the circumvention of CARP’s distributive intent through successive inheritance, artificially fragmenting landholdings to avoid coverage. The Court upheld the DAR’s consistent administrative interpretation, as reflected in its issuances, that heirs of landowners who died after June 15, 1988, collectively share the deceased’s five-hectare retention area. Consequently, the children are entitled only to a proportionate share of a single five-hectare retention from their mother’s estate, not to individual five-hectare rights. The Court reinstated the DAR Secretary’s order maintaining the NOC over the subject land, subject only to the collective retention right of the heirs.