G.R. No. 199008 , November 19, 2014.
Danilo Almero, Teresita Alagon, Celia Bulaso, Ludy Ramada, Regina Gegremosa, Isidro Lazarte, Thelma Embarque, Felipe Lazarte, Guilerma Lazarte, Dulcesima Benimele, Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Miguel Pacquing, as represented by Linda Pacquing Fadrilan, Respondents.

FACTS

Miguel Pacquing acquired a 23.6272-hectare agricultural land in Tagum City through a Homestead Patent, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. (P-2590) P-653 on January 6, 1955. On August 5, 1991, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) sent a Notice of Coverage placing the estate under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Miguel Pacquing filed a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) but died during the proceedings. His sole heir, respondent Linda Pacquing-Fadrilan, executed an affidavit adjudicating the property to herself and later filed an application for retention with the DAR, which was denied in a December 14, 1993 order that became final and executory. On June 25, 1994, petitioners, identified as farmer-beneficiaries, were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) over portions of the land. Linda sought to cancel these CLOAs. The DAR Regional Director, in an order dated December 18, 2008, ruled the estate was subject to CARP and the CLOAs were valid. The DAR Secretary, in an August 18, 2009 order, denied Linda’s appeal, finding that while the homestead was still owned by the original grantee’s heir at the time of CARP’s effectivity, the heir was not cultivating it, thus not exempting it from coverage. Linda appealed to the Office of the President (OP). The OP, in a February 16, 2011 decision, reversed the DAR Secretary, recalling and cancelling the petitioners’ CLOAs, holding that Linda’s protests demonstrated a willingness to cultivate, entitling her to exercise rights as an heir. The OP denied reconsideration on July 19, 2011. Petitioners directly filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

ISSUE

Whether the homestead land is exempt from CARP coverage under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 , despite the heir of the patentee not cultivating the land at the time of CARP’s effectivity and having previously offered it for sale under the VOS scheme.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the decision and resolution of the Office of the President. The Court held that for homestead lands to be exempt from CARP coverage under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 , two requisites must concur: (1) the homestead grantee or his direct compulsory heir(s) still own the original homestead at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988; and (2) the original homestead grantee or his direct compulsory heir(s) was cultivating the homestead as of June 15, 1988 and continues to cultivate the same. Applying the ruling in Paris v. Alfeche, the Court found that while the first requisite was met (the heir still owned the land), the second requisite was not, as it was undisputed that the heir was not cultivating the land. The mere expression of a desire to cultivate, as held by the OP, is insufficient; the law requires the fact of continued cultivation. Therefore, the land is not exempt from CARP coverage. The Court also addressed procedural issues, allowing the direct recourse as it raised pure questions of law. The August 18, 2009 Order of the DAR Secretary was affirmed.