CASE DIGEST

WRITTEN BY: Ana Beatha Castil

CASE NAME: Daez v. Court of Appeals (GR No. 133507 February 17, 2000)
DOCTRINE: On retention

Facts:
Daez applied for the exemption of her 4.1685 hectares of Riceland in Barangay Lawa,
Meycauayan, Bulacan, after finding out the land is a part of the LOI 474. However, the request for
exemption was denied by Secretary Medina because petitioners property exceeds the 7 hectares
limit provided by Presidential Decree 27. Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary Leong, the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court affirmed and disregarded the affidavit executed by the
private respondents as findings show that it was done under duress. The affidavit states that
Soriente, Macatulad, Mediana and Umali are laborers rather than tenants. These private
respondents were temporarily issued emancipation patents (grant of title under PD 27 which may
cover for previously titled or untitled property shall be issued). Then, Daez filed for retention
pursuant to RA 6657, and DAR region III OIC Bernardo approved of, however, denied their
request of her 8 children claiming 3 hectares of land each as they failed to prove direct
management.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners may still file a petition for retention of subject land, despite
previous claim of right to retention pursuant to PD 27, and such denial from different Courts
Ruling:
Petitioner Daez has the right to retain the 4.1685 hectares of land pursuant to RA 6657 even
after the denial pursuant to Presidential Decree 27. According to the case of Association of Small
Landowners in the Phils v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, landowners who have not yet exercised
their right to retention under PD 27 are entitled to such rights pursuant to RA 6657 regardless of
the deadline imposed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order 1, series of
1985. Also, the requisites were met as the land was devoted to rice, there was share-crop or leasetenancy, and it does not exceed 24 hectares as provided by law. Hence the petition is granted. The
decision of Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside. The decision of the Office of the President
is reinstated. Ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform to fully accord the rights of the private
respondents pursuant to Section 6 of RA 6657.