GR 174830; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174830 ; July 31, 2009
ISABELITA vda. DE DAYAO and HEIRS OF VICENTE DAYAO, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF GAVINO ROBLES, Respondents.
FACTS
Anacleto Dayao owned agricultural lands in Bulacan and Pampanga. Upon his death, his children, Vicente and Isabelita, inherited the property. On January 31, 1976, Vicente Dayao filed an application for retention of up to seven hectares of tenanted rice and corn land under Presidential Decree No. 27, listing several parcels and their respective tenants, including Gavino Robles. Twenty years later, on October 16, 1996, the DAR Regional Director granted the application, allocating specific areas to Vicente’s heirs and, notably, also granting a retention right to his sister Isabelita. By this time, Vicente had died, and his heirs were substituted in the action.
Gavino Robles, one of the listed tenant-farmers, appealed the DAR order. The DAR Secretary and, subsequently, the Office of the President, denied his appeal and affirmed the grant of retention. Robles then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the orders of the DAR and the Office of the President, which had granted the application for retention filed by Vicente Dayao and extended a retention right to Isabelita Dayao?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed its decision, holding that the DAR had no valid basis to grant the application for retention. The Court sustained the appellate court’s factual findings that Vicente Dayao’s application was “insufficient, incomplete and lacking in forthrightness,” as it failed to comply with the legal requirements under agrarian laws. Crucially, the application did not provide a proper and complete basis for the DAR’s computation and grant of the retention area.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Isabelita Dayao never filed her own application for retention. Consequently, the DAR acted without jurisdiction when it gratuitously granted her a retention right in its order. Since the fundamental application by Vicente was legally infirm, the DAR and the Office of the President misappreciated the material evidence, leading to an erroneous grant of the retention rights. The petition was denied, and the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the administrative orders was upheld.