Department of Agrarian Reform, Quezon City and Pablo Mendoza

vs.
Romeo C. Carriedo, G.R. No. 176549

FACTS:
Pablo Mendoza (petitioner) was a tenant of the land (5.0001 of 73.3157 hectares) owned
by Roman De Jesus by virtue of a Contrato King Pamimuisan. Mendoza has been paying 25 piculs
of sugar every crop year as lease rental to Roman. It was later changed to Two Thousand Pesos
(P2, 000.00) per crop year, the land being no longer devoted to sugarcane. Later that moment,
Roman died leaving the land to his surviving wife Constales, and their two sons Mario and
Antonio. Antonio executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Waiver of Right which made
Constales and Mario co-owners in equal proportion of the agricultural land left by Roman.
Mario sold 70.4788 hectares to Carriedo (respondent) with 5 separate landholding titles.
The area sold to the respondent included the land tenanted by the petitioner (the 5.0001 hectares),
and the latter asserted that the sale took place without his consent. He assailed that the sale was
invalid due to such reason.
Carriedo sold all of these landholdings to the Peoples’ Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI)
represented by its president, Bernabe Buscayno. All the lands, except that covered by TCT No.
17680, were subjected to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme and were awarded to
agrarian reform beneficiaries in 1997.
The petitioner and respondent were involved in three cases concerning the land: (1)
Ejectment case which was decided by the PARAD, affirmed by the DARAB and CA, in favor of
Carriedo, (2) Redemption case which also ruled in favor of Carriedo, and (3) the Coverage Case,
where the petitioner claimed that he had been in physical and material possession of the land as
tenants since 1956, and made the land productive. The CA declared that the land should be retained
to Carriedo and his right of retention is a constitutional-guaranteed right, subject to certain
qualifications specified by the legislature. Aggrieved, Mendoza filed a motion to the SC claiming
that the CA committed an error. Hence, this case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Carriedo has the right to retain the land.
RULING:
YES. The SC affirmed that Carriedo has the constitutional-guaranteed right to retain his
land pursuant to Artile XIII, Section 4. Further, Sec. 6 of RA No. 6657 provides, “Except as
otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable
family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no
case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.”
The petitioner contested that Carriedo lose his rights of retention by disposing of his
agricultural land pursuant to Sec. 6 of RA No. 6657 and that Carriedo’s alleged failure to exercise
his right of retention after a long period of time constituted a waiver of his retention rights.
Assuming that his right of retention has commenced, the respondent cannot be said to have
neglected that right because he filed a application for retention which was even contested by
Mendoza’s son in December 13, 1971. Though Carriedo subsequently withdrew his application,
his act of filing an application for retention belies the allegation that he abandoned his right of
retention or declined to assert it.
Moreover, Sec. 6 shows that the disposition of agricultural land is not an act constituting
waiver of the right of retention. Under the facts of this case, the reasonable reading of Sections 6,
70 and 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 clearly do not provide that a sale or disposition of land in excess of
5 hectares results in a forfeiture of the five-hectare retention area. In relation to the constitutional
right of retention, the consequence of nullity pertains to the area/s which were sold, or owned by
the transferee, in excess of the 5-hectare land ceiling. Thus, the CA was correct in declaring that
the land is Carriedo’s retained area. The SC held that the decision of DAR-CO for imposing a
penalty against Carriedo was ultra vires, and that Carriedo did not waive his right to retain the
land, nor can he be considered to be in estoppel.