G.R. No. 176549 January 20, 2016
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY & PABLO MENDOZA, Petitioners, vs. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a 5.0001-hectare agricultural land originally part of a larger property owned by Roman De Jesus. Petitioner Pablo Mendoza became the tenant of the land in 1972 under a “Contrato King Pamamuisan.” After Roman’s death, his son Mario sold approximately 70.4788 hectares, including Mendoza’s tenanted land, to respondent Romeo C. Carriedo on June 26, 1986. Mendoza alleged the sale was without his knowledge. In June 1990, Carriedo sold all the landholdings to the Peoples’ Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI). All lands except the 5.0001-hectare lot tenanted by Mendoza were placed under agrarian reform.
Three related cases preceded this petition:
1. Ejectment Case (DARAB Case No. 163-T-90): Carriedo filed a complaint for ejectment against Mendoza. The PARAD, DARAB, and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Carriedo, declaring him the absolute owner, finding Mendoza had knowledge of the sale, and terminating the tenancy due to Mendoza’s failure to pay rentals. This Court (G.R. No. 143416) denied Mendoza’s petition, making these issues final.
2. Redemption Case (DARAB III-T-1476-97): Mendoza filed a petition for redemption. The DARAB initially granted it, but the Court of Appeals reversed, upholding Carriedo’s ownership.
3. Coverage Case (ADM Case No. A-9999-03-CV-008-03): On February 26, 2002, Mendoza, his daughter, and another filed a Petition for Coverage of the 5.0001-hectare land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The DAR Regional Director granted the petition. Carriedo appealed to the DAR Central Office (DAR-CO), which affirmed the coverage order on February 22, 2005, ruling Carriedo waived his retention rights by disposing of his other agricultural landholdings. Carriedo filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the DAR-CO in a Decision dated October 5, 2006, declaring the land as Carriedo’s retained area. The DAR and Mendoza filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the DAR-CO Order and declaring the subject landholding as Carriedo’s retained area, thereby exempting it from CARP coverage.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
The Court held that the right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right of landowners, intended to mitigate compulsory land acquisition. The right is subject to qualifications specified by law, primarily that the landowner may retain not more than five hectares. The Court found that Carriedo did not waive his right of retention. The DAR-CO’s conclusion that Carriedo waived his right by selling his other landholdings was erroneous. A waiver must be explicit, clear, and categorical. The acts cited by the DAR-CO do not constitute a waiver under applicable administrative orders. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not bar the Court of Appeals from reviewing the DAR-CO’s order, as the issue involved the correct application of law and jurisprudence on retention rights, which is within the courts’ competence. The Court also noted that the finality of the ejectment case (G.R. No. 143416) established Carriedo’s ownership and the termination of Mendoza’s tenancy, which impacted his standing to seek coverage. The land was properly declared as Carriedo’s retained area.