Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Itliong

The coverage of agricultural lands under CARP and the status of landowners are reckoned from the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988, not from the date of issuance of the Notice of Coverage; heirs of a landowner who died after 15 June 1988 are not entitled to separate retention limits but merely step into the shoes of the deceased landowner, and the right of retention is deemed waived when no application is filed within sixty days of receipt of the NOC.

Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay conjugally owned a 22.3377-hectare agricultural landholding in Tagpore, Panabo City, Davao, covered by TCT No. T-104039. RA 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, took effect on 15 June 1988 and covers all private agricultural lands, allowing landowners to retain up to five hectares and granting qualified children of landowners up to three hectares. Lourdes died on 20 September 2004, after the effectivity of RA 6657, transmitting her half-share of the conjugal landholding to her heirs by intestate succession.

Spouses Emigdio and Lourdes Dakanay conjugally owned a 22.3377-hectare agricultural landholding in Tagpore, Panabo City, Davao, covered by TCT No. T-104039. On 20 September 2004, Lourdes died, leaving behind her husband Emigdio and their four children: David, Mejella, Phoebe, and Antoinette. Upon her death, her half-share of the landholding was transmitted to her heirs. Emigdio waived all his hereditary rights over the same in favor of his four children by virtue of an Extrajudicial Partition of Estate dated 01 October 2004, giving each child approximately 2.7922 hectares.

On 31 May 2005, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer issued a Notice of Coverage over the entire 22.3377 hectares, addressed to Emigdio, who received it on 09 June 2005. Two months later, on 02 August 2005, respondents David et al. filed a Petition to Lift Notice of Coverage with respect to their share totaling 11.16885 hectares, claiming that since each heir's share of 2.7922 hectares was below the five-hectare retention limit under RA 6657, it should not be covered by CARP. Meanwhile, on 24 August 2005, Justiniana Itliong filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and an Opposition to Lift Notice of Coverage, alleging that she was representing her late husband who had been a tenant of the subject landholdings; this motion was not acted upon at the time.

Regional Director Rodolfo T. Inson denied the Petition to Lift Notice of Coverage on 15 February 2006, citing a DAR Memorandum dated 18 October 2002 which opined that only registered owners as of the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 are entitled to five-hectare retention, and that heirs of landowners who died after that date shall divide the proceeds in accordance with the law on succession. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 18 May 2006, the Regional Director explaining that CARP coverage is reckoned from the effectivity of the law, not from the date of Lourdes's death.

Respondents David et al. appealed to the DAR Secretary. On 13 November 2009, then Secretary Nasser Pangandaman granted the appeal, lifting the NOC over the subject 11.16885 hectares while maintaining coverage for the remaining 11.16885 hectares. He concluded that the reckoning point was 31 May 2005, the date the NOC was issued to Emigdio, who was no longer the owner of the subject portion. On 17 December 2009, intervenor Justiniana Itliong filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that the Order contravened established DAR guidelines. On 08 August 2012, then Secretary Virgilio De Los Reyes granted Justiniana's motion, reversing Pangandaman's Order and reinstating Regional Director Inson's Orders, holding that respondents merely stepped into the shoes of their mother and were entitled only to a proportionate share of the five-hectare retention area. David et al.'s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 18 March 2015.

Before the Court of Appeals, respondents David et al. argued that the subject landholding was outside CARP coverage because the NOC was erroneously issued to Emigdio, that they already owned the land as heirs before the NOC was issued, and that their individual shares did not exceed the retention limit. The CA ruled in their favor on 22 May 2017, holding that the heirs' vested rights of ownership accrued upon Lourdes's death and could not be taken away by the issuance of an NOC. The CA reversed Secretary De Los Reyes's Orders and reinstated Secretary Pangandaman's Order. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 11 September 2017, prompting the instant petition.

• CARP Coverage: Petitioner argued that the subject landholding is not exempt from CARP coverage considering that RA 6657, which took effect on 15 June 1988, covers all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, and that the inclusion of any land under CARL is determined as of that date.
• Hierarchy of Laws: Petitioner argued that RA 6657 prevails over the New Civil Code, the former being a special law while the latter a general law.
• Validity of NOC: Petitioner maintained that the NOC was validly issued to Emigdio, who was the registered owner of the subject landholding, with TCT No. T-104039 still subsisting in his name at the time of issuance.

• Erroneous Issuance of NOC: Respondents David et al. contended that the 11.16885-hectare subject landholding is outside CARP coverage because the NOC was erroneously issued to Emigdio, who was no longer its owner at the time.
• Ownership by Succession: Respondents David et al. argued that even before the NOC was issued, the subject landholding was already owned by them in their respective rights as heirs of Lourdes, and that the Civil Code provisions on succession are controlling.
• Retention Limit: Respondents David et al. maintained that their respective shares of 2.7922 hectares each do not exceed the five-hectare retention limit prescribed by law, and that the date of issuance of the NOC is the reckoning point for determining retention limits.
• Adoption of Petitioner's Arguments: Respondent Justiniana Itliong, substituted by her son Georgino Itliong, adopted the arguments of petitioner.

• CARP Coverage and Reckoning Point: Whether the CA erred in holding that the subject property is exempt from DAR coverage under RA 6657, specifically whether the reckoning point for CARP coverage and landowner status is the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 or the date of issuance of the NOC.
• Conflict Between RA 6657 and the Civil Code: Whether RA 6657 prevails over the Civil Code provisions on succession, or whether the two laws may be harmonized.
• Validity of the NOC: Whether the NOC was validly issued to Emigdio as the registered owner of the subject landholding.
• Waiver of Retention Rights: Whether respondents David et al. waived their right to claim retention under Lourdes's retention limit.

• CARP Coverage and Reckoning Point: Yes, the CA erred. The inclusion of land under CARP and the status as landowners are reckoned from the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988; the issuance of an NOC merely initiates the acquisition process and does not trigger coverage.
• Conflict Between RA 6657 and the Civil Code: No conflict exists. RA 6657 and the Civil Code may be applied harmoniously, with heirs of deceased landowners stepping into the shoes of the decedent and entitled only to the proceeds unless they qualify as actual tillers.
• Validity of the NOC: Yes, the NOC was validly issued. Emigdio was the registered owner of the subject landholding at the time, with TCT No. T-104039 still subsisting in his name.
• Waiver of Retention Rights: Yes, the right of retention was deemed waived. No application for retention was filed within sixty days of receipt of the NOC as required under DAR AO No. 02-2003.

• CARP Coverage and Reckoning Point: RA 6657 became effective on 15 June 1988, immediately upon publication in at least two national newspapers of general circulation. The inclusion of any land under CARL is determined as of that date. An NOC is merely a document informing the landowner that DAR has preliminarily identified the land for coverage; it commences the compulsory acquisition process but does not trigger the coverage itself. As underscored in Robustum Agricultural Corp. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, the issuance of an NOC merely initiates a proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution, and its date is useful only for determining the commencement of the proceeding — particularly for purposes of applying the period under Section 30 of RA 9700. Because the reckoning point is 15 June 1988, respondents David et al. are not the landowners contemplated by law as of that date, but children of landowners. They may be awarded three hectares only if they meet the qualifications under Section 6 of RA 6657: (a) at least fifteen years of age, and (b) actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm. This is consistent with DAR AO No. 02-2003, which provides that children of landowners may be awarded up to three hectares as preferred beneficiaries provided they are at least fifteen years old as of 15 June 1988 and actually tilling the land or directly managing the farmholding.

• Conflict Between RA 6657 and the Civil Code: Both petitioner's and respondents' contentions — that RA 6657 prevails over the Civil Code, or vice versa — are incorrect. Statutory construction requires that courts first exhaust all efforts to harmonize seemingly conflicting laws before resorting to choosing which law to apply. RA 6657 allows a retention limit of up to five hectares to the landowner and may grant up to three hectares to qualified children. If a child does not meet the qualifications, he or she may only inherit the property of the parents under the Civil Code on succession; such child is not entitled to a separate retention limit. The bicameral committee deliberations confirm that legislators envisioned the simultaneous application of RA 6657 and the Civil Code, with heirs who do not till the land not intended to have their own retention limit but merely stepping into the shoes of their decedent parents. DAR AO No. 02-2009 explicitly provides that heirs of deceased landowners who died after 15 June 1988 and whose lands are covered under CARP are only entitled to the five-hectare retention area of the deceased landowner.

• Validity of the NOC: Under DAR AO No. 04-2005, the NOC shall be addressed to and received by the landowner. Emigdio and Lourdes are the landowners contemplated by RA 6657 as of 15 June 1988. Moreover, at the time the NOC was issued, TCT No. T-104039 was still subsisting in Emigdio's name. The NOC was therefore validly issued to him.

• Waiver of Retention Rights: Under DAR AO No. 02-2003, spouses who own only conjugal properties may retain a total of not more than five hectares. The landowner is given the option to exercise the right of retention at any time before receiving the NOC by submitting an affidavit stating the aggregate area of his or her landholdings and the names of all farmers, actual tillers, or occupants. If the landowner fails to manifest an intention to exercise the right to retain within sixty calendar days after receiving the NOC, the right is deemed waived. There is nothing in the records showing that Emigdio, Lourdes, or respondents David et al. signified their intention to exercise the right of retention before Emigdio received the NOC on 09 June 2005. They did not file the required affidavit within sixty days, and their Petition to Lift Notice of Coverage cannot be treated as an application for retention because it does not contain the required information under AO No. 02-2003. The records are also bereft of any indication that respondents met the two statutory qualifications for the three-hectare award for children of landowners. As declared in prior cases, the DAR has no authority to decree a retention when no application was ever filed. Respondents have therefore waived any right to claim under the retention limit and are only entitled to the proceeds of the subject landholding.

• Reckoning Point of CARP Coverage — The inclusion of agricultural lands under CARP and the status of landowners are determined as of the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988, not from the date of issuance of the Notice of Coverage. The NOC merely initiates the compulsory acquisition proceeding and facilitates the process of implementing RA 6657 on a particular landholding; it does not trigger coverage. Applied in this case to hold that respondents, as children of a landowner who died after 15 June 1988, were not the landowners contemplated by law as of the reckoning date.

• Retention Rights of Heirs of Deceased Landowners — Heirs of a landowner who died after 15 June 1988 are not entitled to separate five-hectare retention limits each. They merely step into the shoes of the decedent and may only claim under the single five-hectare retention area of the deceased landowner. A child of a landowner may be awarded up to three hectares as a preferred beneficiary only if he or she meets two qualifications: (a) at least fifteen years of age as of 15 June 1988, and (b) actually tilling the land or directly managing the farmholding. If the child does not qualify, he or she may only inherit the proceeds of the land under the Civil Code on succession.

• Harmonization of Seemingly Conflicting Laws — When faced with apparently irreconcilable inconsistencies between two laws, courts must first exhaust all efforts to harmonize the seemingly inconsistent laws and only resort to choosing which law to apply when harmonization is impossible. Applied to hold that RA 6657 and the Civil Code on succession operate simultaneously: RA 6657 governs retention limits and CARP coverage, while the Civil Code governs the inheritance of proceeds by unqualified heirs.

• Waiver of Right of Retention — The right of retention is an option that must be exercised by the landowner at any time before receipt of the NOC, or within sixty calendar days after receiving the NOC, by filing an affidavit stating the aggregate area of landholdings and the names of all farmers, actual tillers, or occupants. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the right of retention. The DAR has no authority to decree a retention when no application was ever filed.

• "the date of issuance of NOC does not trigger the coverage of the subject landholding under CARL. As we underscored in Robustum Agricultural Corp. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, the issuance of an NOC merely initiates a proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution under the agrarian reform program." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the reckoning point of CARP coverage, distinguishing the NOC's procedural function from the substantive coverage determined as of 15 June 1988.

• "heirs have never been given retention rights, because we have the law on succession; there can be no inheritance without a decedent. So, I was thinking that we should really have a viable compromise on this retention limit based on historical legislation as well as on our Civil Code, the legal provision." — This quotation from the bicameral committee deliberations, cited by the Court, establishes the legislative intent that heirs do not receive separate retention rights but inherit from the retention area of the decedent landowner.

• "a child of the landowner who does not meet the qualifications under the law are not entitled to a separate retention limit. In any case, said child is entitled to his or her rights under the provisions of the Civil Code on succession." — This passage defines the harmonized operation of RA 6657 and the Civil Code, confirming that unqualified heirs inherit only the proceeds, not a separate retention area.

• Robustum Agricultural Corp. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, 843 Phil. 423 (2018) — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that the issuance of an NOC merely initiates a proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution, and that the date of issuance is useful only for determining the commencement of the proceeding.

• Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal, 808 Phil. 138 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the reckoning point in determining coverage under CARL is the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988, and that lands outside agricultural activity prior to that date are outside CARL coverage.

• Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Santiago, Jr., 696 Phil. 142 (2012) — Followed. Cited for the factual proposition that RA 6657 was approved on 10 June 1988 and became effective on 15 June 1988.

• Nuñez vs. Heirs of Villanoza, 809 Phil. 965 (2017) — Followed. Cited for the rule that the right of retention must be exercised by filing the required affidavit within sixty days of receipt of the NOC, and that the DAR has no authority to decree a retention when no application was filed.

• Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Garilao, G.R. Nos. 132073 & 132361, 06 October 2021 — Followed. Cited alongside Nuñez for the proposition that the DAR cannot decree a retention absent a filed application.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), as amended by RA 9700 — Governs retention limits, allowing landowners to retain up to five hectares and granting qualified children up to three hectares. Applied to determine that respondents, as children of a deceased landowner, were not entitled to separate retention limits but could only claim under the single five-hectare retention area of Lourdes, provided they qualified as actual tillers.

• Section 78, Republic Act No. 6657 — Provides that RA 6657 is effective immediately upon publication in at least two national newspapers of general circulation. Applied to establish 15 June 1988 as the reckoning date for CARP coverage and landowner status.

• Section 30, Republic Act No. 9700 — Governs the resolution of pending cases and proceedings involving the implementation of RA 6657. Cited in relation to the relevance of the NOC issuance date for determining the commencement of proceedings.

• Article XIII, Section 4, 1987 Constitution — Mandates the State to undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of landless farmers and farmworkers to own the lands they till, subject to reasonable retention limits. Cited as the constitutional foundation for the social justice principles underlying CARP.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 02-2003 — Governs landowner retention rights, providing that spouses owning conjugal properties may retain up to five hectares, and that failure to file an affidavit of retention within sixty days of receipt of the NOC constitutes a waiver. Applied to hold that respondents waived their right of retention.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 02-2009 — Explicitly provides that heirs of deceased landowners who died after 15 June 1988 and whose lands are covered under CARP are only entitled to the five-hectare retention area of the deceased landowner. Applied to confirm that respondents were not entitled to separate retention limits.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 04-2005 — Provides that the NOC shall be addressed to and received by the landowner. Applied to validate the issuance of the NOC to Emigdio as the registered owner.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Hernando, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ.