DAR Vs Carriedo (10 October 2018 Decision)

Department of Agrarian Reform vs.
Carriedo
G.R. No. 176549; 10 October 2018
Jardeleza, J.
Doctrine:
The equity in the policy of AO 05-06 is apparent. By sharing his landholdings, it is
reasonably presumed that the landowner already received an amount (as purchase price)
commensurate to the just compensation comfortable with the constitutional and statutory
requirement. At this point, equity dictates that he cannot claim anymore, either in the guise
of his retention area or otherwise, that which he already received in the previous sale of his
land.
Facts:
In its 20 January 2016 Decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Carriedo did not
waive his right of retention over the subject landholding when he sold the same to the
People’s Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI) without DAR clearance, applying Section 6
of A.O. No. 02-03, which states that the disposition of agricultural land is not an act
constituting waiver of the right of retention. Moreover, in the same decision, the Court
declared Item No. 4 of AO No. 05-06 as void for being ultra vires because it appeared to
provide terms that expand or modify some provisions of the CARL.
The DAR filed for a motion for reconsideration of this Decision, arguing that the
subject landholding cannot be considered as the retained area of Carriedo because he has
already exercised his right of retention when he previously sold his landholdings with
approximately 58.3723 hectares without DAR clearance. DAR contends that Carriedo’s
act of disposing his landholdings is tantamount to the exercise of his right of retention
under the law. DAR posits that the Decision “will provide landowners unbridled freedom
to dispose any or all of their agricultural properties without DAR clearance and still at a
moment’s notice decide which of those lands he wishes to retain, to the prejudice not only
of the tenants and/or farmer beneficiaries but of the entire CARP as well.”
Furthermore, DAR argues that the objective of Item 4 of AO 05-06 is equitable—
that in order to ensure the effective implementation of the CARL, previous sales of
landholdings without DAR clearance should be treated as the exercise of retention rights
of the landowner.
Issues:
(1) W/n Item No.4 of A.O. 05-06 is valid.
(2) W/n Carriedo’s sale of his landholdings to PLFI can be treated as the exercise of his
retention rights such that he cannot lawfully claim the subject landholding as his
retained area anymore.
Ruling:
(1) YES, Item No. 4 of A.O. 05-06 is valid.
The equity in the policy of AO 05-06 is apparent. By sharing his landholdings, it is
reasonably presumed that the landowner already received an amount (as purchase
price) commensurate to the just compensation comfortable with the constitutional
and statutory requirement. At this point, equity dictates that he cannot claim anymore,
either in the guise of his retention area or otherwise, that which he already received in
the previous sale of his land.
AO 05-06 is in consonance with the Stewardship Doctrine, which has been held to be
the property concept in Section 6, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. Under this
concept, private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for
the people in general, who are its real owners. The objective of the agrarian reform
program, which is to distribute land to the landless farmers and farmworkers, is carried
out by Item 4 of AO 05-06 as it provides for the consequences in situations where a
landowner had sold portions of his/her land with an area more than the statutory
limitation of 5 hectares. In this scenario, Item 4 of AO 05-06 treats the sale of the first
five hectares as the exercise of the landowner’s retention rights. The reason is that,
effectively, the landowner has already chosen, and in fact has already disposed of, and
has been duly compensated for, the area he is entitled to retain under the law. This legal
consequence arising from the previous sale of land therefore eliminates the prejudice,
in terms of equitable land distribution, that may befall the landless farmers and
farmworkers.
(2) YES, Carriedo can no longer lawfully claim the subject landholding as his retained area.
The Court notes that the previous sale of Carriedo’s landholdings was made in violation
of the law, being made without the clearance of the DAR. To rule that Carriedo is
still entitled to retain the subject landholding will, in effect, reward the violation,
which the Court cannot allow.
The right of retention serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by
balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant, and by implementing the doctrine
that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. In this
case, however, Carriedo claims his right over the subject landholding not because he
was “deprived” of a portion of his land as a consequence of compulsory land coverage,
but precisely because he already previously sold his landholdings, so that the subject
landholding is the only portion left for him.

DAR Vs Carriedo (10 October 2018 Decision)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAR Vs Carriedo (10 October 2018 Decision)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DAR Vs Carriedo (10 October 2018 Decision)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Agrarian Reform vs.

You might also like