Daez v.

CASs

Deceased petitioner Eudosia Daez, now represented by her heirs, was the owner of a 4.1685 hectares
of of riceland in Bulacan which was cultivated by private respondents under share-tenancy. Under the
PD 27, the said land was subjected to transfer in favor of the respondents. The petitioner applied for
exemption from PD 27 on the basis of an affidavit, allegedly signed under duress, stating that the
respondents were mere hired laborers. In their application, the petitioner declared ownership 14
hectares of riceland, among others.

The DAR denied the application because the total land exceeded the 7 hectare limit. Petitioner moved
for reconsideration but it was denied. She brought the case to the CA but CA affirmed the DARs
decision. She moved for reconsideration but it was again denied.

Subsequently, petitioner filed application for the retention of the 4.185 land under RA 6657. The DAR
Region III Director allowed the retention. However, the DAR Secretary set aside the order or the
director. The petitioner brought the case to the Office of the President which ruled in her favor.
However, the order was reversed by the CA. Hence, the petition for certiorari.

Issues:

Whether or not exemption from agrarian reform coverage and retention are two different actions.

Whether or not petitioner may retain despite previous transfer already made in favor of the
beneficiaries.

1. yes, exemption and retention are two distinct concepts. The requisites for the grant of exemption
are different than that of requisites for the grant of retention. Hence, they cannot be assumed to be
the same thing. Being distinct remedies, the application for one does not preclude a person from
applying for the other.

2. Yes, the petitioner is allowed to retain the 4.185 land. There is no doubt that the land does not
exceed the retention limit. Also, the other requisites for retention were also met. Hence, the
petitioner is qualified to exercise her right to retention. In so far as the previous transfer certificates
were issued, they do not bar the petitioner from exercising her right. They are only documents
evidencing ownership of land. They do not constitute title to the land itself. In other words, the
transfer certificates cannot confer title when no title had been acquired in the first place.