Heirs of Griño v CA
GR 165073
Facts:
• Griño was the owner of a parcel of agricultural
land, covered by TCT No. T-53350 2 of the
Register of Deeds of Iloilo containing an area
of 9.35 hectares. He was also the owner of a
50-hectare parcel of land which he, on
February 8, 1972, mortgaged to the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) to
secure the payment of a loan.
• On October 21, 1972, then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Decree No. 27 (PD 27), "Decreeing The
Emancipation Of Tenants From The Bondage
Of The Soil Transferring To Them The
Ownership Of The Land They Till And
ProvidingThe Instruments And Mechanism
Therefor."
• Griño's 9.35 hectare land was placed under
the coverage of PD 27 because it is tenanted
riceland. The CLTs covering a portion thereof
was issued in favor of his tenants.
• He later filed for cancellation of the CLTs and
died before DAR Regional Director dismissed
his petition pursuant to LOI 474, as
implemented by MAR Memorandum Circular
No. 11 dated April 21, 1978. His heirs sought
the exemption of the 9.35 hectare land from
the coverage of either PD 27 or the CARL,
contending that Griño had seven children and
if a landowner is entitled to 5 hectares as
retention limit, the remaining land of Griño
would not be enough for his children, the 50-
hectare land of Griño having already been
ceded to the DBP.
• DAR RD dismissed the petition. It was later
elevated to DAR Secretary and the CA which
also dismissed their case.
Issue: WON Griño’s heirs have the right to
retain subject land.
1 of 3
Ruling
: No, because of the following:
1. The reckoning date for the application of
Operation Land Transfer is October 21,
1972, the date of effectivity of P.D. 27, which
is the law applicable in this case. By
operation of law, as of October 21, 1972, the
subject landholdings were covered by
Operation Land Transfer under Presidential
Decree No. 27 in view of the fact that the
landholdings are tenanted and Griño has
other landholdings with an area of 50
hectares. The conveyance of the 50
hectares landholdings in favor of DBP
sometime in 1985 has no legal effect of
exempting the tenanted landholdings from
Operation Land Transfer considering that
the conveyance happened only in 1985,
several years after the subjecting of the said
properties under the coverage of Operation
Land Transfer.
2. Where a landowner is not entitled to retain
land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right
of retention over the same land under RA
6657. It is established that Griño was
not entitled to exercise his retention right
over subject property under PD 27. As such,
he is also not entitled to exercise said right
under RA 6657. If Griño had no retention
rights under PD 27 and RA 6657, it follows
that his heirs, who are his successors-in-
interest, cannot also exercise the same right
under PD 27 and RA 6657.
3. When the heirs of Griño filed their application
for retention under RA 6657 in 1997 they had
to contend with an existing adverse ruling by
the DAR in 1989. The estate and the
individual heirs are likewise estopped by
laches from questioning the denial for
retention. The denial was made on
September 25, 1989 and the heirs'
present petition was made only on March 1
7, 1997 or 7 1/2 years later. At this point,
laches has set in, laches being “the failure or
 neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which
by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier.
Estribillo v DAR
GR 159674
Facts:
• Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc.
requested that 527.8308 hectares of
itslandholdings be placed under the coverage
of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving
compensationtherefor, HMI allowed
petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the
landholdings so that thesame may be covered
under Agrarian Reform Program.
• In 1982, a final survey over the entirearea was
conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988,
the corresponding TCTs and EPscovering the
entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to
petitioners, among other persons.
• In December 1997, HMI filed with RARAD
petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous
coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of
277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings.
HMI claimedthat said area was not devoted to
either rice or corn, that the area was
untenanted, and that nocompensation was
paid therefor.
• RARAD rendered a decision declaring as void
the TCTs andEPs awarded to petitioners
because the land covered was not devoted to
rice and corn, andneither was there any
established tenancy relations between HMI
and petitioners. Petitionersappealed to the
DARAB which affirmed the RARAD Decision.
• On appeal to the CA, the samewas dismissed.
Petitioners contended that the EPs became
indefeasible after the expiration of oneyear
from their registration.
Issue: Whether or not EPs have become
indefeasible one year after their issuance.
2 of 3
Held:
• After complying with the procedure in Section
105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration
Decree where the DAR is required to issue the
corresponding certificate of title after granting
an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied
withPresidential Decree No. 27, the TCTs
issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs
acquire the
same protection accorded to other TCTs.
• The certificate of title becomes indefeasible a
nd incontrovertible upon the expiration of one
year from the date of the issuance of the order
for the issuance of the patent. Lands covered
by such title may no longer be the subject
matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be
decreed to another person
Deleste vs LBP
G.R. No. 169913
FACTS:
• Spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria
Tabuclin – owners of a parcel of agricultural
land in Tambo, Iligan City; they were childless
and only had Virgilio Nanaman (son of
Gregorio by another woman)
• Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio
administered the Iligan property and
subsequently sold this to Dr. Jose Deleste
• Hilaria died in 1954, Gregorio’s brother – Noel
was appointed as regular administrator of the
estate, he then filed an action for reversion of
the title of the property, this case went up to
the SC where it was ruled that the property
was the conjugal property of Nanaman
spouses and so Hilaria can only sell ½ of the
land
• Deleste and the intestate estate of Gregorio
were then held to be co-owners of the property
• PD 21 was issued in 1972 - DECREEING THE
EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE
 BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING
TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE
INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM
THEREFOR – property was placed under the
Operation Land Transfer program, however
only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by
Department of Agrarian Reform as landowners
• In 1975, the City of Iligan passed an ordinance
-- “Zoning Regulation of Iligan City” which
reclassified the land into
commercial/residential
• In 1984, the DAR issued Certificates of Land
Transfer in favor of private respondents who
were the tenants and actual cultivators of the
land
• In 2001, Emancipation Patents and Original
Certificates of Title were issued to the private
respondents
• City of Iligan expropriated a part of the property
– as the issue of ownership was pending, the
just compensation was deposited with the
Development Bank of the Philippines held in
trust for the RTC of Iligan City
• Petitioners Heirs of Deleste filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify the
EP’s issued to the private respondents
• Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) declared the EP’s null and void, in
view of the pending issues of ownership,
the subsequent reclassification of the
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
Execution
• 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
• Petitioners filed a petition for review with the
CA which was denied for failure to attach the
writ of execution, a subsequent motion for
reconsideration was filed and denied
• Petitioners filed with the SC a petition for
review which was denied as no reversible error
was shown, they then filed an MR which the
SC granted and gave due course – hence this
proceeding
ISSUE(S):
1. Were the petitioner’s constitutional right to
due process violated by DAR (for failure to
send notice)?
2. Is the property covered by the agrarian
reform program?
3. Is the property covered by PD 27?
RULING:
1. YES. DAR violated the petitioner’s right to
due process when it failed to notify them that
the property will be covered by the agrarian
reform program
2. NO. It is outside the coverage of the agrarian
reform program in view of the enactment of
the local zoning ordinance.
3. NO. Even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are
deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this
is not to be construed as automatically
vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute
ownership over the land. They need to
comply with certain requirements first.