G.R. No. 165073 ; June 30, 2006
HEIRS OF JUAN GRIÑO, SR. REPRESENTED BY REMEDIOS C. GRIÑO, Petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.

FACTS

Juan Griño, Sr. owned a 9.35-hectare tenanted rice land in Leganes, Iloilo. Upon the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27) on October 21, 1972, the land was placed under agrarian reform coverage, and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) were issued to his tenants. Griño petitioned for the cancellation of the CLTs in the early 1980s, offering in exchange portions of his other 50-hectare land in Sara, Iloilo. This petition was dismissed by the DAR Regional Director in 1989, citing Letter of Instructions No. 474, which mandated coverage of lands seven hectares or less if the owner possessed other agricultural lands exceeding seven hectares. Griño later ceded the 50-hectare property to the Development Bank of the Philippines via dacion en pago.
After the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) in 1988, Griño’s heirs filed an application for retention over the 9.35-hectare land in 1997. They argued that with Griño’s seven children, the five-hectare retention limit under CARL would be insufficient, especially since the 50-hectare land had already been conveyed. The DAR Regional Director denied the application, and this denial was affirmed by the DAR Secretary and the Office of the President. The Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed the heirs’ petition.

ISSUE

Whether the heirs of Juan Griño, Sr. are entitled to retain the 9.35-hectare land under the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed rulings. The Court held that the applicable law for determining the landowner’s rights is PD 27, not the CARL, as the land was already under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer on October 21, 1972, the date PD 27 took effect. Under PD 27 and the implementing LOI 474, a landowner owning tenanted rice or corn land seven hectares or less is not entitled to retention if he owns other agricultural lands exceeding seven hectares. At the time of PD 27’s effectivity, Griño indisputably owned the other 50-hectare land. His subsequent conveyance of that property via dacion en pago did not alter the legal situation; the operative fact for coverage was his ownership of the other agricultural land at the time the law took effect. The CARL’s retention limits, invoked by the heirs, apply only to lands covered under its own provisions, not to lands already distributed under PD 27. The issuance of Emancipation Patents to the tenants in 1997 vested ownership in them and made the land irrevocably beyond the reach of a retention claim by the landowner’s heirs.