HAROLD JAKE D.

SIBAYAN TAXATION AND AGRARIAN REFORM

BS ARCHITECTURE 04

G.R. No. 154654 Supreme Court 2nd Division (Velasco Jr., J.)
Josephine Taguinod & Vic Aguila vs. September 14, 2007
Court of Appeals, Antonino Samaniego, et al.

FACTS:

Salud Aguila was the registered owner of the disputed lots based on homestead patents. Said lots
were transferred to Vic Aguila, who was then a minor, and to Josephine Taguinod. Both lots were
held under the Operation Land Transfer pursuant to PD 27 with 12 tenants or farmer-beneficiaries
identified. Salud Aguila, on behalf of Vic Aguila, filed an application for retention over the said
land. And when Vic Aguila reached the age of majority, he filed a letter-protest for exclusion or
exemption from OLT. Taguinod filed the same letter-protest seeking for exclusion and exemption
from OLT. The DAR Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) recommended the approval of
applications of Salud and Taguinod to the DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) for
retention of the lots in question. PARO did grant the application, which led the beneficiaries to file
a counter-protest.

The issue was then elevated to the Regional Director of DAR, who ruled that the application for
retention be granted to the petitioners of not more than seven (7) hectares of land. Lots in excess
of 7 hectares must be placed under the control of the Operation Land Transfer. Petitioners filed
motions for reconsideration.

Taguinod filed an appeal with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,
contending that she was the rightful owner of the disputed land after redeeming the property from
Salud Aguila, her adoptive mother, when such land was subjected to a mortgage. The Secretary
affirmed the decision of the DAR Regional Director and denied the petitioner’s appeal. The
Secretary also found that Salud Aguila was disqualified to retain 7 hectares of land.

With this decision, the petitioners interposed appeal before the Office of the President. The Office
of the President ruled in favor of the petitioners. It anchored its ruling on the fact that the land in
question was derived from a homestead patent. As such, these lands are exempt from the coverage
of PD 27.

The respondents, then, filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. The CA reversed the decision of
the Office of the President and reinstated the decision of the Secretary of DAR. CA agreed with
the Office of the President that the rights of the homesteaders are superior to those of tenants
invoking agrarian reform laws. However, petitioners failed to establish the identities of the original
homestead patentees and that they are direct compulsory heirs of the original patentees.
ISSUE:

Are the lots previously covered by homestead patents outside the ambit of PD 27?

LAW:

RA 6657, Sec. 6 provides that original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. According to SC, it is a settled
rule that homestead grantees’ rights are superior to those of tenants invoking rights under the
agrarian reform law. However, in this case, the petitioners failed to prove the identities of the
original homestead grantees and establish that they were indeed direct compulsory heirs of the
grantees to avail of the exemption. As exclusions from the coverage of PD 27 must be strictly
construed, failure on the part of the petitioners to prove that they are covered by the exemptions
provided for by law extinguishes their rights to avail of the same. Premised on the said grounds,
the petitioners are disqualified to avail of the right of retention over the land as they are not small
landowners and the lands in dispute are subject to the Operation Land Transfer of PD 27.

OPINION:

I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Since petitioners failed to prove that they hold
superior rights over the subject land, they are not entitled to the exemptions accorded by the law.
Granting them with the right of retention over the said land would defeat the very purpose of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Promotion of social justice is the paramount
consideration of the program; hence, it is a deviation from this core purpose if retention will be
granted to the petitioners who still own several parcels of land aside from the lots in question. It is
more in accordance with law that qualified farmer-beneficiaries will be granted parcels of land,
which they can till and fully utilize to improve their living.