FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.93045.June29,1992.]
THETENANTSOFTHEESTATEOFDR.JOSESISON,
RepresentedbyFERNANDOCAYABYAB,petitioners,vs.THE
HON.COURTOFAPPEALSSECRETARYPHILIPELLA
JUICOoftheDEPARTMENTOFAGRARIANREFORM,AND
THEHEIRSOFDR.JOSESISON,RepresentedbyMANUEL
SISON,respondents.
CiprianoA.Tanforpetitioners.
Bengzon,Zarraga,Narciso,Cudala,Pecson&Bengzonforprivaterespondent.
SYLLABUS
1.
ADMINISTRATIVELAWADMINISTRATIVEAGENCIESNOTBOUND
BYTECHNICALRULESOFCOURTPRACTICEANDPROCEDURE.The
CourtofAppealscorrectlyobservedthatthetechnicalrulesofcourtpracticeand
proceduredonotapplytoadministrativeproceedingsintheDepartment(formerly
Ministry)ofAgrarianReform.
2.
CONSTITUTIONALLAWAGRARIANREFORMOPERATIONLAND
TRANSFERRETENTIONLIMITOFSEVEN(7)HECTARESMANDATORY.
"...Inthepresentcase,respondentSecretarywasnotinestoppelwhenit
reconsideredthepreviousrulingofhispredecessor,becausethelatter'srulingis
plainlyanddirectlyagainstthelaw.AstheorderofSeptember7,1988,stated,and
torepeat,theconcernedheirsareentitledunderthelawtoaretentionofseven(7)
hectaresofagriculturallandswhichismandatoryandtheofficehadnodiscretion
toalterthedispositionontheretentionlimitsaccordedbylawtothelandowners.
Noone,noteventhepetitionerstenants,noranycourtofjustice,candepriveor
denythelandownersoftheretentionofseven(7)hectareswhichthelawhas
reservedforthem.Otherwise,thelawwouldbesettonaughtorwouldloseits
veryreasonforbeing.Besides,thereisnoadministrativeruleorregulation,and
Ourattentionhasnotbeencalledtoit,whichwouldprecludetheSecretaryof
AgrarianReform,tochangethedecisionofhispredecessoriftherulingispatently
againstthelawonthecontrary,justiceandequitydemand,thattheerrorshould
notbemadetoprevailoverwhatiscorrectandlegal..."

3.
ID.ID.ID.ID.FAILURETOAPPLYTHEREFORDOESNOT
CONSTITUTEANESTOPPELORWAIVEROFOWNER'SRIGHTTHERETO.
Thefailureoftheprivaterespondentstoapplyforretentionofseven(7)
hectareseachoftheiragriculturallandholdingsdidnotconstituteanestoppelor
waiveroftheirrespectiverightofretention.Theomissionwascuredbytheirtimely
protestagainsttheissuanceofthecertificatesoflandtransfertothepetitioners.In
the1stIndorsementbyGregorioSapera,LegalOfficeroftheKagawarang
Pangsakahan,itwasnotedthatasearlyasDecember20,1973,theHeirsofDr.
JosesisonhadbeenseekingexemptionoftheirlandholdingsfromtheOperation
LandTransfer.
4.
ID.ID.ID.ID.PERSONALCULTIVATION,NOTAMANDATORY
PRECONDITIONTOBEENTITLEDTHERETO.Thereisnomeritinthe
petitioners'contentionthattheHeirsofDr.Sisonaredisqualifiedtoretaintheir
sharesoftheagriculturallandsoftheestateforfailuretocomplywiththe
requirementthat"suchlandowneriscultivatingsucharea,orwillnowcultivateit."
TheSecretaryinterpretedthatprovisiontomean"thatthetenantsintheexempted
andretainedricelandareasoftheconcernedHeirsofSison,shallremainas
agriculturallesseestherein.Whichmeans,thatwhileownershipoftheexempted
andretainedricelandareasshallpertaintotheconcernedHeirsofSison,the
petitionerstenant,asagriculturallessees,shallremainassuchandcultivatethe
same.TheconcernedHeirsofSisontherefore,donothavetocultivatethe
retainedandexemptedareas,unlessthepetitioners,asagriculturallessees,
wouldvoluntarilyrelinquishthetaskofcultivationandvacateandsurrenderthe
saidareastotheHeirs."Hence,personalcultivationbytheHeirsofSisonisnota
mandatorypreconditionforthemtobeentitledtotheirretentionright.
5.
ID.ID.ID.ID.CONSTRUED.SecretaryJuico'sinterpretationofthe
owner'srightofretentionconformswithourownconstructioninAssociationof
SmallLandownersinthePhilippines,Inc.vs.SecretaryofAgrarianReforms,G.R.
No.78742,August23,1990,wherewerulethat:"...incasetheareaselectedfor
retentionbythelandowneristenanted,thetenantshallhavetheoptiontochoose
whethertoremainthereinorbeabeneficiaryinthesameoranotheragricultural
landwithsimilarorcomparablefeatures.Incasethetenantchoosestoremainin
theretainedarea,heshallbeconsideredasleaseholderandshalllosehisrightto
beabeneficiaryunderthisact.Incasethetenantchoosestobeabeneficiaryin
anotheragriculturalland,heloseshisrightasaleaseholdertothelandretainedby
thelandowner.Thetenantmustexercisethisoptionwithinaperiodofone(1)year
fromthetimethelandownermanifestshischoiceoftheareaforretention."
6.
ID.ID.ID.CERTIFICATESISSUEDTHEREUNDERMAYBE
CANCELLEDBYTHESECRETARYOFAGRARIANREFORM.Petitioner'
contentionthattheSecretaryofAgrarianReformhadnomoreauthorityor
jurisdictiontocanceltheCertificatesofLandTransferaftertheyhadbeenissued
tothetenantsbeneficiaries,isnotcorrect.Theissuance,recallorcancellationof
certificatesoflandtransferfallwithinthesecretary'sadministrativejurisdictionas
implementorofP.D.27.HavingfoundthatcertainheirsofDr.Sisonwereentitled

toretaintheirricelands(whichdidnotexceedseven[7]hectares)andhadbeen
illegallydeniedthatright,SecretaryJuicoproperlyorderedthecancellationofthe
certificatesofLandTransferwhichhadbeenerroneouslyissuedtothepetitioners.

DECISION

GRIOAQUINO,J :
p

ThisisapetitionforreviewofthedecisiondatedMarch29,1990oftheCourtof
AppealsupholdinganorderoftheSecretaryofAgrarianReform,PhilipEllaJuico,
settingasidethepreviousordersofhispredecessorswhohadissuedcertificates
oflandtransfertothetenantsofthericeandcornlandsofthelateDr.JoseSison
withoutdueregardfortherightofhislegalheirstoretainownershipoftheirshares
iftheydidnotownmorethanseven(7)hectaresofriceorcornland.
PursuanttotheOperationLandTransferProgramoftheGovernmentunder
PresidentialDecreeNo.27,certificatesoflandtransferwereissuedbythe
MinistryofAgrarianReformtothepetitioners,tenantsoftheEstateofDr.Jose
Sison,fortheirrespectiveareasofcultivation.Upondiscoveringthatcertificatesof
landtransferwerebeingissuedtothepetitioners,theheirsofDr.Sisonprotested
tothethenMinisterofAgrarianReform,ConradoEstrella,whoorderedthatthe
certificatesoflandtransferbemarked,"UNDERPROTEST."
MinisterEstrellaorderedaninvestigationofthecase.Theinvestigationreport
datedNovember17,1980,revealedthatthelandholdingsofthelateDr.Jose
SisonatBayambang,Pangasinan,weresubdividedamonghisheirsproindiviso
underaDeedofExtrajudicialPartitiondatedApril2,1966.Consequently,the
actingMARDistrictOfficerofLingayen,Pangasinan,recommendedthe
cancellationofthecertificatesoflandtransferthathadbeenissuedtothe
petitionerstenants.
L e x L i b

However,aReinvestigationReport,datedOctober8,1981recommendedthatthe
landholdingsbeincludedintheOperationLandTransfer.Thiswasaffirmedina
secondReinvestigationReportdatedFebruary9,1982.Stillanother(third)
ReinvestigationReport,datedSeptember29,1986,affirmedtheprevious
recommendationthatthelandholdingsoftheHeirsbecoveredbytheOperation
LandTransfer.
OnFebruary17,1987,thenMinisterHehersonAlvarezdismissedthepetitionfiled
byManuelSison,asrepresentativeofalltheHeirsofDr.Sison,forexemptionof
theirlandholdingsfromthecoverageofOperationLandTransfer.Theheirs'Motion
forReconsiderationofsaidOrderwasdeniedonJuly6,1987.
OnDecember8,1987,theheirsreiteratedtheirrequestforreconsiderationwhen
SecretaryPhilipEllaJuicosucceededSecretaryAlvarez.Theystressedthefact
thattheirindividuallandholdingsweretoosmall,notexceeding7hectareseach,to
comeunderthecoverageoftheOperationLandTransfer.

Afterorderingareinvestigationofthelandholdingsoftheindividualheirs,anorder
wasissuedonSeptember7,1988bySecretaryJuico,modifyingtheordersofhis
predecessors.HeruledthatthericelandsofConsueloS.NazarenoandPeter
SisonareexemptfromtheOperationLandTransferandthatElisaS.Reyes,
RenatoSison,JoseSison,JosefinaS.ZuluetaandJaimeSison,areentitledto
retainnotmorethanseven(7)hectaresoftheirricelands,sincetheyarenot
ownersofmorethanseven(7)hectaresofotherlands,andthatAlfredoSisonand
ManuelSisonarenotentitledtoretentionorexemptionoftheirricelandsfromthe
OperationLandTransferbecausetheyeachownmorethanseven(7)hectaresof
otheragriculturalland.
ThetenantsfiledonOctober27,1988amotionforreconsiderationwhichtheHeirs
ofDr.Sisonopposed.OnFebruary20,1989,anorderwasissuedbySecretary
Juico,denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
PetitionerssoughtreliefintheCourtofAppealswhichrenderedjudgmenton
March29,1990,dismissingtheirpetitionforcertiorari.Hence,thispetitionfor
review,alleging:
1.
thattheorderdatedSeptember7,1988,ofrespondent
SecretaryPhilipEllaJuico,reconsideringandreversingtheorders
ofhispredecessorsdatedFebruary17,1987andJuly6,1987,
violatestheruleonestoppel,whichprohibitstheresurrectionofa
caseafterithasbecomefinalandexecutory
2.
thattherespondentsHeirsofDr.JoseSisonhavingfailed
tofileanyapplicationforretentionwithintheperiodrequiredby
law,andhavingfiledtheirintentionstoapplyforretentionand/or
exemptiononlyonMarch13,1987,whichwasbeyondtheperiod
requiredbylaw,areestoppedandtotallybarredfromclaiming
suchretentionsorexemptions
3.
thatevenassumingthatthesaidHeirsofDr.JoseSison
arestillentitledtofilesuchapplicationsforretentionand/or
exemption,stilltheyaredisqualifiedbylawtobegrantedthesame
undertheprovisionsofP.D.27,inrelationtoLOI474,whichgrant
suchretentionsorexemptionsonly"ifsuchlandowneriscultivating
suchareaorwillnowcultivateit"(p.6,Rollo)and

4.

thattheSecretaryofAgrarianReformhadnomore

authorityorjurisdictiontocanceltheCertificatesofLandTransfer
aftertheyhavebeenissuedtothetenantsbeneficiaries.

Thepetitionhasnomerit.
Petitionershereinquestiontheproprietyandlegalityoftheorderofformer
SecretaryPhilipEllaJuicooftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformdatedSeptember
7,1988,reversingandmodifyingtheordersofhispredecessorswhichallegedly
hadattainedfinalityafterthelapseofmorethanfive(5)monthssincetheorder

soughttobereconsideredthereincontainedaprovisothat"sofarasthisOfficeis
concerned,thiscaseisconsideredalreadyclosed"(p.26,Rollo).Respondent
Secretaryallegedlyviolatedtheruleonestoppel,whichprohibitstheresurrection
ofacaseafterthedecisionhasbecomefinalandexecutory.
Thefirstandfourthgroundsofthepetitionforreviewarenotwelltaken.The
ordersfortheissuanceofCertificatesofLandTransfertothepetitionershadnot
becomefinalandexecutorybecausethecertificateshadbeenmarked"under
protest"onordersofSecretaryEstrella.
L e x L i b

TheCourtofAppealscorrectlyobservedthatthetechnicalrulesofcourtpractice
andproceduredonotapplytoadministrativeproceedingsintheDepartment
(formerlyMinistry)ofAgrarianReform:
"...Inthepresentcase,respondentSecretarywasnotinestoppel
whenitreconsideredthepreviousrulingofhispredecessor,
becausethelatter'srulingisplainlyanddirectlyagainstthelaw.As
theorderofSeptember7,1988,stated,andtorepeat,the
concernedheirsareentitledunderthelawtoaretentionofseven
(7)hectaresofagriculturallandswhichismandatoryandtheoffice
hadnodiscretiontoalterthedispositionontheretentionlimits
accordedbylawtothelandowners.Noone,noteventhe
petitionerstenants,noranycourtofjustice,candepriveordeny
thelandownersoftheretentionofseven(7)hectareswhichthe
lawhasreservedforthem.Otherwise,thelawwouldbesetto
naughtorwouldloseitsveryreasonforbeing.Besides,thereisno
administrativeruleorregulation,andOurattentionhasnotbeen
calledtoit,whichwouldprecludetheSecretaryofAgrarian
Reform,tochangethedecisionofhispredecessoriftherulingis
patentlyagainstthelawonthecontrary,justiceandequity
demand,thatthewrongshouldberightedandtheerrorshouldnot
bemadetoprevailoverwhatiscorrectandlegal..."(p.22,
Rollo.)

Thefailureoftheprivaterespondentstoapplyforretentionofseven(7)hectares
eachoftheiragriculturallandholdingsdidnotconstituteanestoppelorwaiverof
theirrespectiverightofretention.Theomissionwascuredbytheirtimelyprotest
againsttheissuanceofthecertificatesoflandtransfertothepetitioners.Inthe1st
IndorsementbyGregorioSapera,LegalOfficeroftheKagawarangPangsakahan,
itwasnotedthatasearlyasDecember20,1973,theHeirsofDr.JoseSisonhad
beenseekingexemptionoftheirlandholdingsfromtheOperationLandTransfer.
WhetherornoteachoftheHeirsofDr.JoseSisonownsmorethanseven(7)
hectaresofricelandandotheragriculturallands,isafactualissuewhichwe
generallydonotreview.WeareboundbySecretaryJuico'sfinding,affirmedby
theCourtofAppeals,thattheirrespectivelandholdingsareasfollows:
"Riceland
Lands

OtherAgricultural

"1.

ElisaS.Reyes

9.3370Has.

5.3135Has.

"2.

ConsueloS.Nazareno

"3.

AlfredoSison

5.4584Has.

9.1935Has.

"4.

RenatoSison

9.4091Has.

5.2435Has.

"5.

PeterSison

4.6663Has.

5.3135Has.

"6.

JoseSison

9.4069Has.

5.2435Has.

"7.

JosefinaS.Zulueta

"8.

ManuelSison

"9.

JaimeSison

2.4972Has.

9.4066Has.
2.4972Has.

9.1496Has.

6.1460Has.

5.2435Has.
12.1529Has.

5.2435Has."

(p.19,Rollo).

SecretaryJuicoandtheCourtofAppealscorrectlyruledthat:
"Consequently,thelandholdingsofConsueloandPeter,are
exemptedfromtheOLTCoverage,andElisa,Renato,Jose,
JosefinaandJaimeareentitledtoaretentionofnotmorethan
seven(7)hectaresoftheirricelandssincetheyarenottheowners
ofmorethanseven(7)hectaresofotheragriculturallands.
However,theexcessareasoftheretainedportionarecoveredby
OperationLandTransfer.WithrespecttoAlfredoandManuel,they
arenotentitledtotheexemptionand/orretentionoftheirricelands
becausetheyareownersofmorethanseven(7)hectaresofother
agriculturallands.
"Anchoredontheruleoflaw,theapplicabilityofLOINo.474(Oct.
21,1976)astheImplementingmeasureofP.D.No.27(Oct.21,
1972)ontheforegoingfactsandcircumstancesismandatory.This
officedoesnotevenhavethediscretiontoaltertheabove
dispositiononretentionlimitsaccordedthelandownersasthelaw
isclearandexplicitonthispoint.
"xxxxxxxxx
"WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theordersdatedFebruary
17,1987andJuly6,1987ofthisOfficeareherebymodifiedinthe
followingmannerasitisdeclaredandorderedthat:
"1.

ThericelandsofConsueloS.Nazarenosituatedat

Labrador,Pangasinan,andthericelandsofPeterSisonsituatedat
LabradorandBayambang,Pangasinan,areexemptedfromthe
coverageofOperationLandTransfer
"2.

PetitionersElisaS.Reyes,RenatoSison,JoseSison,

JosefinaS.ZuluetaandJaimeSisonaretoretainnotmorethan
seven(7)hectaresoftheirrespectivericelandssituatedin
Bayambang,Pangasinan,buttheexcessareasthereof,situatedin
Labrador,Pangasinan,whicharecoveredbytheOLTandthe
CLTsalreadyissued,ifany,tothetenantsareherebyaffirmed

"3.

PetitionersAlfredoSisonandManuelSisonarenotentitled

tothisexaminationand/orretentionoftheirricelandsastheyare
ownersofmorethanseven(7)hectaresofotheragriculturalland,
andthetenanttillersthereon,iftheyhavenotyetbeenissuedthe
CertificatesofLandTransfer,shallbeissuedsuchCertificatesby
theRegionalDirectorofRegionI,DAR,SanFernando,LaUnion
"4.
Thetenantsintheexemptedandretainedricelandareas
ofthepetitionersshallremainasagriculturallesseesthereonand
theCertificatesofLandTransferissuedtothem,ifany,shallbeas
theyareherebyrecalled/cancelledand
"5.

Thetenantfarmerswithintheexemptedandretained

ricelandareasareherebyorderedtopaytothelandownersthe
leaserentalsduethemorifsuchleaserentalsweredeposited
withtheLandBank,thelandownersaretherefore,authorizedto
withdrawthesaiddeposits."(pp.1920,Rollo.)

Thereisnomeritinthepetitioners'contentionthattheHeirsofDr.Sisonare
disqualifiedtoretaintheirsharesoftheagriculturallandsoftheestateforfailureto
complywiththerequirementsthat"suchlandowneriscultivatingsucharea,orwill
nowcultivateit"(p.23,Rollo).TheSecretaryinterpretedthatprovisiontomean
"thatthetenantsintheexemptedandretainedricelandareasoftheconcerned
HeirsofSison,shallremainasagriculturallesseestherein.Whichmeans,that
whileownershipoftheexemptedandretainedricelandareasshallpertaintothe
concernedHeirsofSison,thepetitionerstenant,asagriculturallessees,shall
remainassuchandcultivatethesame.TheconcernedHeirsofSisontherefore,
donothavetocultivatetheretainedandexemptedareas,unlessthepetitioners,
asagriculturallessees,wouldvoluntarilyrelinquishthetaskofcultivationand
vacateandsurrenderthesaidareastotheHeirs"(p.23,RolloEmphasisours).
RespectshouldbeaccordedtotheSecretary'sconstructionofthelawwhichhis
departmentadministersandimplements(AsturiasSugarCentralInc.vs.Com.of
Customs,29SCRA617AtlasConsolidatedMiningandDevelopmentCorp.vs.
CourtofAppeals,182SCRA166SierraMadreTrustvs.SecretaryofAgriculture
andNaturalResources,121SCRA384).
Hence,personalcultivationbytheHeirsofSisonisnotamandatoryprecondition
forthemtobeentitledtotheirretentionright.
SecretaryJuico'sinterpretationoftheowner'srightofretentionconformswithour
ownconstructioninAssociationofSmallLandownersinthePhilippines,Inc.vs.
SecretaryofAgrarianReforms,G.R.No.78742,August23,1990,whereweruled
that:
"...incasetheareaselectedforretentionbythelandowneris
tenanted,thetenantshallhavetheoptiontochoosewhetherto
remainthereinorbeabeneficiaryinthesameoranother
agriculturallandwithsimilarorcomparablefeatures.Incasethe
tenantchoosestoremainintheretainedarea,heshallbe

consideredasleaseholderandshalllosehisrighttobea
beneficiaryunderthisAct.Incasethetenantchoosestobea
beneficiaryinanotheragriculturalland,heloseshisrightasa
leaseholdertothelandretainedbythelandowner.Thetenant
mustexercisethisoptionwithinaperiodofone(1)yearfromthe
timethelandownermanifestshischoiceoftheareaforretention."
(EnBanc,MinuteResolution.)

Petitioners'contentionthattheSecretaryofAgrarianReformhadnomore
authorityorjurisdictiontocanceltheCertificatesofLandTransferaftertheyhad
beenissuedtothetenantsbeneficiaries,isnotcorrect.Theissuance,recallor
cancellationofcertificatesoflandtransferfallwithintheSecretary'sadministrative
jurisdictionasimplementorofP.D.27.HavingfoundthatcertainheirsofDr.Sison
wereentitledtoretaintheirricelands(whichdidnotexceedseven[7]hectares)
andhadbeenillegallydeniedthatright,SecretaryJuicoproperlyorderedthe
cancellationoftheCertificatesofLandTransferwhichhadbeenerroneously
issuedtothepetitioners.
WHEREFORE,findingnoreversibleerrorinthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,
theCourtherebyAFFIRMSitintoto.
SOORDERED.
Cruz,MedialdeaandBellosillo,JJ.,concur.