GR 204905; (July, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 204905 , July 14, 2021
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PETITIONER, VS. DIANA H. MENDOZA, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Clifford Hawkins was the registered owner of two parcels of agricultural land in Piat, Cagayan. In 2001, these lands were placed under CARP coverage via a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). On September 25, 2006, Diana H. Mendoza filed an application for retention over several lots from these lands, which had already been awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. She claimed to be Clifford’s heir. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer recommended approval, but the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer recommended dismissal, citing Mendoza’s failure to submit required documents and an implied waiver of the right of retention by Clifford, as he did not manifest an intent to retain when the VOS was filed. The DAR Regional Director and later the DAR Secretary denied Mendoza’s application, upholding the finding of implied waiver and noting her failure to prove her relationship to Clifford or his death. Mendoza appealed to the Court of Appeals, which remanded the case to the DAR Regional Director to determine the validity of the VOS and its effects on Clifford’s heirs. The DAR Secretary, through the OSG, filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the denial of respondent’s application for retention was pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 and established jurisprudence.
RULING
Yes, the denial was proper. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the DAR Secretary’s orders. The Court held that the right of retention is personal to the landowner. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 2003, an heir can only exercise this right if the deceased landowner had manifested the intent to retain before death. Mendoza failed to prove that Clifford manifested such intent. Furthermore, she did not submit the required documents to prove her relationship to Clifford and his death, which are prerequisites for an heir’s application. The issue of the VOS’s validity, raised only on appeal, could not be considered. The Court noted that Mendoza’s proper recourse, if she believed the VOS was invalid, was to seek its nullification in a separate proceeding.