PAULINE EUNICE S.
LOBIGAN
JD – 2B
AGRARIAN LAW and SOCIAL LEGISLATION
CASE DIGEST
De Chavez vs. Zobel 55 SCRA 26
Full Ownership under Presidential Decree No. 27
PETITIONER: ZOILA DE CHAVEZ
RESPONDENT: ENRIQUE ZOBEL
FACTS:
Enrique Zobel is the registered owner of a parcel of the
land located at Calatagan Batangas, known as
Hacienda Bigaa. With an aggregate area of more than
500 hectares.
The tenants tilling lands in portion thereof are the
following:
1. Bartolome Dimaala · 1 lot with an approximate
area of 1.1440 hectare;
2. Rufo Garcia · area of lot is more or less one (1)
hectare;
3. Paulino Esguerra · two (2) lots with an aggregate
area of about two (2) hectares;
4. Fernando Veroya · one (1) lot with an area of
about ½ hectare;
5. Wilson Zapatero · one (1) lot with an area of
about less than 1-1/2 hectares;
6. Rufino Zapatero · one (1) lot with an area of
about one (1) hectare;
7. Almario Alab ·three (3) lots with an area of about
3 hectares;
8. Roman Veroya · one (1) lot of about 1/2 hectare;
9. Romana Vizconde · one (1) lot with an area of
about 1/2 hectare; and
10. Zoila de Chavez · four (4) lots with an aggregate
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
JD – 2B
AGRARIAN LAW and SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Private respondent Zobel, sought to eject petitioners.
Petitioners, as tenants, vigorously objected to such
petition not only on the ground that the small areas
they are occupying were not suited for mechanization,
but likewise on the allegation that the true intention of
respondent as landholder was to utilize the same for
pasture and for the raising of sorghum.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner Chavez is entitled to
the land she is tilling pursuant to Presidential
Decree 27.
RULING:
1.
Yes Chavez is entitled to the land she is tilling pursuant
to Presidential Decree 27.
There is no question as to the tenancy relationship as
well as to the areas occupied by petitioners as tenants. For
the decision of the Court of Appeals now sought to be
reviewed did clearly specify: At the hearing of these cases on
July 15, 1963, the litigants, through their counsels, entered
into the following stipulation of facts: 1. That the relation of
landholder and tenant between the petitioner and the
respondents is admitted; 2. That the respective area
cultivated by each of the respondents is the same as
indicated in the facts. That is why, as set forth at the outset,
the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 27 decreeing the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and
transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and
providing the instruments and mechanism therefor is
unavoidable.
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
JD – 2B
AGRARIAN LAW and SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Daez vs. CA GR No. 133507
Full Ownership under the CARL of 1988, as amended
PETITIONER: EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS
RESPONDENT: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
MACARIO SORIENTES
FACTS:
Eudosia Daez, now deceased, was the owner of a
4.1685hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa,
Meycauayan, Bulacan.
The same being cultivated by respondents Macario
Soriente, Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana and
Manuel Umali under a system of sharetenancy.
The said land was subjected to the Operation Land
Transfer (OLT) Program under Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 27 as amended by Letter of Instruction (LOI)
No. 474.
Thus, the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform acquired
the subject land and issued Certificates of Land
Transfer (CLT) on December 9, 1980 to private
respondents as beneficiaries.
Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from coverage by
P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Eudosia
Daez next filed an application for retention of the same
riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657.
In an order dated March 22, 1994, DAR Region III OIC
Director Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed Eudosia Daez to
retain the subject riceland but he denied the application
of her eight (8) children to retain three (3) hectares
each for their failure to prove actual tillage of the land
or direct management thereof as required by law.
Aggrieved, they appealed to the DAR.
PAULINE EUNICE S. LOBIGAN
JD – 2B
AGRARIAN LAW and SOCIAL LEGISLATION
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not heirs of Eudosia Daez are entitled
for the retention of a 4.1685-hectare riceland
pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law.
RULING:
1.
Yes, petitioner heirs of Eudosia Daez may exercise
their right of retention over the subject 4.1685 riceland.
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed
right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It
serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition
by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and
by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not
meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.
For as long as the area to be retained is compact or
contiguous and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five
(5) hectares, a landowner's choice of the area to be retained,
must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 4, series of
1991, which supplies the details for the exercise of a
landowner's retention rights, likewise recognizes no limit to
the prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded
to retain other lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers.
Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised
over tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate
of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must
be protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to
either stay on the land chosen to be retained by the
landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural land
with similar or comparable features.
