You are on page 1of 2

Title: Daez v. CA Issue: WON Daez may retain the disputed 4.

1685 hectares land Facts: Petitioner Daez owned a 4.1685 hectare land in Meycauayan, Bulacan which was being cultivated by the respondent farmers Soriente et al. The problem arose when the land was subjected to the OLT pursuant to PD 27 as amended by LOI 474. Thus, the land was transferred to the ownership of beneficiaries on December 9, 1980. On May 31, 1981, private respondents made an affidavit under duress stating they are not tenants but hired workers. Hence, Daez apllied for exemption of OLT claiming her land is untenanted and the cancellation of the CLTs. (not majorly related to the topic) In their Affidavit dated October 2, 1983, Eudosia Daez and her husband, Lope, declared ownership over 41.8064 hectares of agricultural lands located in Meycauayan, Bulacan and fourteen (14) hectares of riceland, sixteen (16) hectares of forestland, ten (10) hectares of "batuhan" and 1.8064 hectares of residential lands in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Included in their 41.8064-hectare landholding in Bulacan, was the subject 4,1685-hectare riceland in Meycauayan. DAR Undersecretary Jose C Medina: Denying Eudosia Daezs application for exemption upon finding that her subject land is covered under LOI No. 474, petitioner being owner of the aforesaid agricultural lands exceeding seven (7) hectares. DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong Leong affirmed the assailed order upon finding private respondents to be bonafide tenants of the subject land. Disregarded the affidavit of the farmers under duress. Court of Appeals Sustained the decision of both DAR secretaries Supreme Court Denied their prayers and sustained the decisions Main Issue Related to our topic Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Eudosia Daez next filed an application for retention of the same riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657. DAR Regional Director March 22, 1994, DAR Region III OIC-Director Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed Eudosia Daez to retain the subject riceland but he denied the application of her eight (8) children to retain three (3) hectares each for their failure to prove actual tillage of the land or direct management thereof as required by law. They appealed to DAR Secretary.

DAR Secretary Affirmed the decision of the regional director. Appealed to the Office of the President (OP). Office of the President Ruled in favor of Daez or her heirs and rendered judgment authorizing the retention of the 4.1685 hectare of land. Still denied the application of the children. Hence the appeal in CA. Court of Appeals Reversed and set aside the decision of the Office of the President: Held: Petitioner Daez has the right to retain the 4.1685 hectare land pursuant to her right of retention under 6657. The decision of the Office of the President is reinstated. Ratio: Read Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657 Paez was denied the right to choose what she wants to retain.