HEIRS OF ROMULO D. SANDUETA, namely: GLORIA SANDUETA ELOPRE, HEIRS OF JOSEPHINE S. NADALA, represented by ROY S. NADALA, HOFBOWER ANDUETA, NERISA SANDUETA MICUBO, OSCAR SANDUETA, MARILYN SANDUETA VELASCO, RONALD SANDUETA, AND NAPOLEON SANDUETA, VS. DOMINGO ROBLES, HEIRS OF TEODORO ABAN, namely: NERI

Ruling

accordingly inherited several agricultural lands situated in Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte, with a total land area of 18.7433 hectares (has.). [4] One of these parcels of land is Lot No. 3419, with an area of 13.7554 has. [5] covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-5988. [6] The 4.6523- hectare riceland portion (subject portion) of the foregoing lot was tenanted by Eufrecena Galeza, Teodoro Aban, and Domingo Pableo [7] (tenants) who were instituted as such by the original owner, Diosdado Jasmin, prior to its sale to Sps. Sandueta. [8] The subject portion was placed under the governments Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. (PD) 279 and consequently awarded to the above-named tenants who were issued the corresponding Emancipation Patents (EPs). [10] The Proceedings Before the DAR On July 7, 2005, petitioners filed before the DAR District Office in Dipolog City a petition [11] seeking to exercise their right of retention over the subject portion pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, [12] known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, and as enumerated in the case of Assn. of Small Landowners in the Phils., Inc. v. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian Reform [13] (Assn. of Small Landowners). They also sought to annul the EPs of the tenants as well as compel the tenants to pay back rentals. [14] The Provincial Protest Application and Resolution Unit referred the case to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Dipolog City who, after investigation, recommended the denial of the petition. [15] On the other hand, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), while similarly recommending the denial of the petition for retention, nevertheless recommended the grant of a 5-hectare retention area for petitioners to be taken from the portion of Lot No. 3419 not covered by the OLT Program. [16] On April 5, 2006, the DAR Regional Office No. IX, through Regional Director Julita R. Ragandang (Director Ragandang) issued an Order [17] (April 5, 2006 Order) adopting the PAROs recommendation. Director Ragandang explained that a landowner who failed to exercise his right of retention under PD 27 can avail of the right to retain an area not exceeding 5 has. pursuant to Section 6 of RA 6657, [18] adding that this award is different from that which may be granted to the children of the landowner, to the extent of 3 has. each, in their own right as beneficiaries. [19] However, to be entitled thereto, each child must meet the age qualification and requirement of actual cultivation of the land or direct management of the farm under Section 6, as well as the other conditions under Section 22 [20] of RA 6657. As petitioners were absentee landowners who had left the cultivation of the subject portion entirely to the tenants, Director Ragandang therefore concluded that they are not entitled to exercise retention rights thereon [21] and, hence, denied their petition for retention. Despite such denial, Dire