You are on page 1of 3

Heirs of Griño v CA Ruling

GR 165073 : No, because of the following:

1. The reckoning date for the application of
Facts: Operation Land Transfer is October 21,
• Griño was the owner of a parcel of agricultural 1972, the date of effectivity of P.D. 27, which
land, covered by TCT No. T-53350 2 of the is the law applicable in this case. By
Register of Deeds of Iloilo containing an area operation of law, as of October 21, 1972, the
of 9.35 hectares. He was also the owner of a subject landholdings were covered by
50-hectare parcel of land which he, on Operation Land Transfer under Presidential
February 8, 1972, mortgaged to the Decree No. 27 in view of the fact that the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to landholdings are tenanted and Griño has
secure the payment of a loan. other landholdings with an area of 50
• On October 21, 1972, then President hectares. The conveyance of the 50
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential hectares landholdings in favor of DBP
Decree No. 27 (PD 27), "Decreeing The sometime in 1985 has no legal effect of
Emancipation Of Tenants From The Bondage exempting the tenanted landholdings from
Of The Soil Transferring To Them The Operation Land Transfer considering that
Ownership Of The Land They Till And the conveyance happened only in 1985,
ProvidingThe Instruments And Mechanism several years after the subjecting of the said
Therefor." properties under the coverage of Operation
• Griño's 9.35 hectare land was placed under Land Transfer.
the coverage of PD 27 because it is tenanted 2. Where a landowner is not entitled to retain
riceland. The CLTs covering a portion thereof land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right
was issued in favor of his tenants. of retention over the same land under RA
• He later filed for cancellation of the CLTs and 6657. It is established that Griño was
died before DAR Regional Director dismissed not entitled to exercise his retention right
his petition pursuant to LOI 474, as over subject property under PD 27. As such,
implemented by MAR Memorandum Circular he is also not entitled to exercise said right
No. 11 dated April 21, 1978. His heirs sought under RA 6657. If Griño had no retention
the exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from rights under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows
the coverage of either PD 27 or the CARL, that his heirs, who are his successors-in-
contending that Griño had seven children and interest, cannot also exercise the same right
if a landowner is entitled to 5 hectares as under PD 27 and RA 6657.
retention limit, the remaining land of Griño 3. When the heirs of Griño filed their application
would not be enough for his children, the 50- for retention under RA 6657 in 1997 they had
hectare land of Griño having already been to contend with an existing adverse ruling by
ceded to the DBP. the DAR in 1989. The estate and the
• DAR RD dismissed the petition. It was later individual heirs are likewise estopped by
elevated to DAR Secretary and the CA which laches from questioning the denial for
also dismissed their case. retention. The denial was made on
September 25, 1989 and the heirs'
Issue: WON Griño’s heirs have the right to present petition was made only on March 1
retain subject land. 7, 1997 or 7 1/2 years later. At this point,
laches has set in, laches being “the failure or

1 of 3
neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which Held:
by exercising due diligence, could or should • After complying with the procedure in Section
have been done earlier. 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration
Estribillo v DAR Decree where the DAR is required to issue the
GR 159674 corresponding certificate of title after granting
an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied
Facts: withPresidential Decree No. 27, the TCTs
• Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc. issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs
requested that 527.8308 hectares of acquire the
itslandholdings be placed under the coverage same protection accorded to other TCTs.
of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving • The certificate of title becomes indefeasible a
compensationtherefor, HMI allowed nd incontrovertible upon the expiration of one
petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the year from the date of the issuance of the order
landholdings so that thesame may be covered for the issuance of the patent. Lands covered
under Agrarian Reform Program. by such title may no longer be the subject
• In 1982, a final survey over the entirearea was matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be
conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, decreed to another person
the corresponding TCTs and EPscovering the
entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to Deleste vs LBP
petitioners, among other persons. G.R. No. 169913
• In December 1997, HMI filed with RARAD
petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous FACTS:
coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of • Spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria
277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings. Tabuclin – owners of a parcel of agricultural
HMI claimedthat said area was not devoted to land in Tambo, Iligan City; they were childless
either rice or corn, that the area was and only had Virgilio Nanaman (son of
untenanted, and that nocompensation was Gregorio by another woman)
paid therefor. • Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio
• RARAD rendered a decision declaring as void administered the Iligan property and
the TCTs andEPs awarded to petitioners subsequently sold this to Dr. Jose Deleste
because the land covered was not devoted to • Hilaria died in 1954, Gregorio’s brother – Noel
rice and corn, andneither was there any was appointed as regular administrator of the
established tenancy relations between HMI estate, he then filed an action for reversion of
and petitioners. Petitionersappealed to the the title of the property, this case went up to
DARAB which affirmed the RARAD Decision. the SC where it was ruled that the property
• On appeal to the CA, the samewas dismissed. was the conjugal property of Nanaman
Petitioners contended that the EPs became spouses and so Hilaria can only sell ½ of the
indefeasible after the expiration of oneyear land
from their registration. • Deleste and the intestate estate of Gregorio
were then held to be co-owners of the property
Issue: Whether or not EPs have become • PD 21 was issued in 1972 - DECREEING THE
indefeasible one year after their issuance. EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE

2 of 3
BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING • Petitioners filed a petition for review with the
TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND CA which was denied for failure to attach the
THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE writ of execution, a subsequent motion for
INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM reconsideration was filed and denied
THEREFOR – property was placed under the • Petitioners filed with the SC a petition for
Operation Land Transfer program, however review which was denied as no reversible error
only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by was shown, they then filed an MR which the
Department of Agrarian Reform as landowners SC granted and gave due course – hence this
• In 1975, the City of Iligan passed an ordinance proceeding
-- “Zoning Regulation of Iligan City” which
reclassified the land into ISSUE(S):
commercial/residential 1. Were the petitioner’s constitutional right to
• In 1984, the DAR issued Certificates of Land due process violated by DAR (for failure to
Transfer in favor of private respondents who send notice)?
were the tenants and actual cultivators of the 2. Is the property covered by the agrarian
land reform program?
• In 2001, Emancipation Patents and Original 3. Is the property covered by PD 27?
Certificates of Title were issued to the private
respondents RULING:
• City of Iligan expropriated a part of the property 1. YES. DAR violated the petitioner’s right to
– as the issue of ownership was pending, the due process when it failed to notify them that
just compensation was deposited with the the property will be covered by the agrarian
Development Bank of the Philippines held in reform program
trust for the RTC of Iligan City 2. NO. It is outside the coverage of the agrarian
• Petitioners Heirs of Deleste filed with the reform program in view of the enactment of
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication the local zoning ordinance.
Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify the 3. NO. Even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are
EP’s issued to the private respondents deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this
• Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator is not to be construed as automatically
(PARAD) declared the EP’s null and void, in vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute
view of the pending issues of ownership, ownership over the land. They need to
the subsequent reclassification of the comply with certain requirements first.
property into a residential/commercial land
and the violation of petitioner’s
constitutional right to due process of law
• Private respondents filed a Notice of Appeal,
while the petitioners filed a Motion for Writ of
• DARAB reversed the ruling of PARAD and
held the EP’s were valid and that the
petitioners Heirs of Deleste should have been
the one informed by DAR at the time the
property was placed under the OLT program

3 of 3