Dizon,

Mary Rose E.
HEIRS OF GRIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
DOCTRINE: A landowner who failed to exercise his retention right of land under PD 27 may
do so under RA 6657 provided he is qualied to do so under the regime of PD 27. Stated
differently, where a landowner is not entitled to retain land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the
right of retention over the same land under RA 6657.
FACTS: Juan Grino, Sr. (deceased) was the owner of a 9.35-ha parcel of agricultural land
in Leganes, Iloilo and of a 50-ha parcel of land in Sara, Iloilo which he mortgaged to the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to secure payment of a loan in Feb. 1972.
Oct. 1972: Pres. Marcos issued PD 27 Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the
Bondage of the Soil Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the
Instruments and Mechanism Therefor. With this, Grinos 9.35-ha was placed under PD 27
where the Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) of a portion thereof were issued to his
tenants, Marianito Gulmatic, Ludovico Hubero, Rodolfo Hubero, Placida Catahay and
Roberto Gula.
Early 80s: Grino filed a petition to cancel the CLTs contending that he was
deprived the opportunity to be heard and the riceland only covered a little over 6 ha of
the property. In lieu of the property covered by the CLTs, he offered 7 ha from the said
50-ha land. However, he later ceded to the DBP his 50-ha land via dacion en pago to
settle his obligation.
1985: Grino died before the CARL took effect. 1989: DAR Regional Director
Antonio S. Maraya acted on Grinos petition for cancellation and dismissed the same
relying on LOI 474, on account of his owning the 50-ha land. 1997: the heirs of Grino
sought exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from the coverage of either PD 27 and CARL,
claiming that the 7 children-heirs were entitled to 5 ha each pursuant to Sec. 6 of the
CARL. In the meantime, Emancipation Patents were issued to the tenants.
1998: the DAR Regional Director Dominador Andres dismissed the application
for retention, declaring that the reckoning date of the Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
was in October 21, 1972 and not date upon the effectivity of the CARL (June 15, 1988).
The heirs appealed to the DAR Secretary, Hernani A. Braganza, who denied their
appeal. He further declared since Grino, pursuant to LOI 474, was not entitled to
exercise his retention right over subject property under PD 27. As such, he is also not
entitled to exercise said right under RA 6657. If Juan Grio, Sr. had no retention rights
under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows that his heirs, who are his successors-in-interest,
cannot also exercise the same right under PD 27 and RA 6657.
On further appeal, the CA upheld the decision of the DAR Secretary, further
holding that res judicata and laches had already set in. The heirs filed a motion for
reconsideration claiming that they were not able to participate in the petition for
cancellation of CLTs and as such they should not be bound by the decisions of DAR
Regional Director. This motion was denied.

Dizon, Mary Rose E.

In this petition for certiorari to the SC, the heirs also fault the CA for ignoring the
evidence they discovered when they had the opportunity to examine the records
forwarded by the DAR to the appellate court that Grino was misled into believing
that the CLTs had been issued, when there were none, or that the (September 25, 1989)
Maraya Order denying Grios petition for cancellation of the CLTs was without legal
effect because the (1) CLTs were inexistent, (2) he was dead by the time the Order was
rendered, and the property had long passed on to his heirs, and (3) the heirs were never
notified of said order, and there is no showing that it was sent even to Grinos address of
record either.
ISSUE: May the Grino heirs be given the right of retention over the lands herein?
HELD: NO. Petitioners application for retention stating that the date for the application
of OLT is October 21, 1972, the date of effectivity of PD 27, the law applicable in this case,
and not the date of effectivity of RA 6657 (June 15, 1988), which is applicable only in
suppletory manner. By operation, the lands were covered by OLT under PD 27 due to the
fact that they are tenanted and Grino has other lands in Sara, Iloilo of around 50 ha, and
the conveyance of such in favor of DBP has no legal effect of exempting the lands from
Operation Land Transfer considering that the conveyance happened only in 1985, years
after the subjecting of the properties under the coverage of OLT.
Since Grino cannot retain any portion of his tenanted riceland in Leganes, Iloilo,
herein applicants, who are his successors-in-interest, cannot also retain the same
property under PD 27. Herein applicants-appellants merely succeeded to the rights of
their predecessor-in-interest by virtue of the Law on Succession under the Civil Code. It
should be noted that under DAR AO 4 (1991), no retention rights are granted to the
children of landowners.
The SC clearly indicates that a landowner who failed to exercise his retention
right of land under PD 27 may do so under RA 6657 provided he is qualified to do so
under the regime of PD 27. Stated differently, where a landowner is not entitled to
retain land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right of retention over the same land
under RA 6657. IIn the case at hand, it is established that Grino was not entitled to
exercise his retention right over subject property under PD 27. As such, he is also not
entitled to exercise said right under RA 6657. If Grino had no retention rights under PD
27 and RA 6657, it follows that his heirs, who are his successors-in-interest, cannot also
exercise the same right under PD 27 and RA 6657.
Also, as the CA ruled, the heirs were guilty of laches in their attempt to
resurrect the retention issue (7 ) years after its denial was decreed and came to
finality. The heirs filed their application for retention under RA 6657 in 1997 and
contended with an existing adverse ruling by the DAR in 1989. The denial was made on
September 1989 and the present petition was only filed in March 1997. Further, the DAR
cannot be faulted if no substitution of parties took place when Grino died, it being the
duty of the heirs to attend to the estate of the deceased, which duty includes notification
to adjudicating tribunals the fact of death of the litigant.