G.R. No. 204218, May 12, 2021
FROILAN NAGAÑO, NIÑA PAULENE NAGAÑO, AND TERESITA FAJARDO, PETITIONERS, VS. LUIS TANJANGCO, ANTONIO ANGEL TANJANGCO, TERESITA TANJANGCO-QUAZON, AND BERNARDITA LIMJUCO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

A 238.7949-hectare land in Mambangan, San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija was placed under the land transfer program of Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27) on October 21, 1972. The property was originally registered under the names of Spouses Jose Tanjangco and Anita Suntay (144 hectares) and respondents Luis Tanjangco, Antonio Angel Tanjangco, Teresita Tanjangco-Quazon, Bernardita Limjuco, and their two siblings Federico and Antonio S. Tanjangco (95.5845 hectares). Emancipation patents were issued to tenant-beneficiaries. On April 7, 1983, the 144-hectare portion was transferred to respondents and their siblings under TCT No. 177766. On October 5, 1999, respondents filed an application for retention of five hectares each under Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657). Petitioners, who claim to be transferees of the lots subject of the retention application (Lot Nos. 72, 77, 133, 134, 137, and 153), opposed, arguing respondents were disqualified as they each owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice/corn land as of October 21, 1972, per DAR Administrative Order No. 04-91 (DAO 04-91). During the proceedings, respondents and siblings executed a Deed of Partition on July 4, 2000, allocating 20 hectares to each respondent. The DAR Regional Director denied the application on January 12, 2004, citing DAO 04-91 disqualification for owning more than 24 hectares. The DAR Secretary initially affirmed on March 26, 2009 but on a different ground (owning more than seven hectares of other agricultural lands), then reversed himself in an October 1, 2009 Resolution, granting retention, finding compliance with RA 6657’s five-hectare compact and contiguous requirement. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President, which reinstated the denial on March 10, 2011, upholding the DAO 04-91 disqualifications. The Court of Appeals reversed the Office of the President and reinstated the DAR Secretary’s October 1, 2009 and June 16, 2010 Resolutions granting retention, citing: (1) petitioners’ belated appeal to the Office of the President; (2) petitioners’ lack of personality as illegal transferees in violation of PD 27’s prohibition on transfers except by hereditary succession or to the Government; and (3) respondents not owning more than 24 hectares individually as of October 21, 1972, as they were co-owners of only 95.5845 hectares at that time.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners are real parties in interest.
2. Whether the appeal before the Office of the President was timely filed.
3. Whether respondents are entitled to retention.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals.
1. Petitioners are not real parties in interest. The transfers of the land to petitioners were made in violation of PD 27, which prohibits any transfer of title to covered lands except by hereditary succession or to the Government. Therefore, petitioners, as illegal transferees, have no legal standing to oppose the retention application.
2. The appeal before the Office of the President was not timely filed. Petitioners received the DAR Secretary’s June 16, 2010 Resolution on June 28, 2010, but filed their appeal on August 9, 2010, exceeding the 15-day reglementary period under DAO 03-03. The October 1, 2009 Resolution of the DAR Secretary had thus become final and executory.
3. Respondents are entitled to retention. The Court applied RA 6657, not PD 27 or DAO 04-91, as the governing law for determining retention rights, since the application was filed in 1999, after RA 6657’s effectivity. Under Section 6 of RA 6657, landowners whose lands were covered by PD 27 are allowed to retain the areas originally retained by them thereunder, but in no case shall retention exceed five hectares. The right to retain under RA 6657 is available provided the area is compact and contiguous. Respondents complied with this requirement. The disqualifications under DAO 04-91 (owning more than 24 hectares or more than seven hectares of other agricultural lands) were not applicable. As of October 21, 1972, respondents were co-owners of only 95.5845 hectares, with individual shares less than 24 hectares. The subsequent transfer in 1983 and the 2000 partition, which gave each respondent 20 hectares, did not retroactively disqualify them. The right to retain is a constitutionally guaranteed right of landowners, not a mere privilege.