Daez v CA

Facts:
Eudosia Daez was the owner of a 4.1685-hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan
which was being cultivated by respondents Macario Soriente, Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana
and Manuel Umali under a system of share-tenancy. The said land was subjected to the Operation
Land Transfer Program under Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Letter of Instruction Armed
with an affidavit, allegedly signed under duress by the respondents, stating that they are not share
tenants but hired laborers, Eudosia Daez applied for the exemption of said riceland from coverage of
P.D. No. 27 due to non-tenancy as well as for the cancellation of the CLTs issued to private
respondents. The application of the petitioner was denied. Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from
coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Eudosia Daez next filed an application for
retention of the same riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657. The DAR Regional Director allowed
Daez to retain the subject land but the DAR Secretary reversed that decision. She appealed to the
Office of the President which ruled in her favour. Respondents appealed to the CA which reversed
the decision of the Office of the President.

Issue:
Whether or not the denial of application for exemption under PD 27 would bar an application for
retention under RA 6657

Held:

The requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage of
OLT and those for the grant of an application for the exercise of a landowners
right of retention are different. Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application
for exemption and an application for retention are one and the same thing.
Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the
subsequent institution of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment
to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for the retention of the subject 4.1865-
hectare riceland, even after her appeal for exemption of the same land was
denied in a decision that became final and executory.

Paris v Alfeche
Facts:
Petitioner is the registered owner of two parcels of land situated at Paitan, Quezon, Bukidnon. The
said parcels are fully tenanted by private respondents herein who are recipients of Emancipation
Patents in their names pursuant to Operation Land Transfer under P.D. 27. Petitioner alleged that she
owns one of the subject property as original homestead grantee who still owned the same when
Republic Act No. 6657 was approved, thus she is entitled to retain the area to the exclusion of her
tenants. The Adjudicator a quo rendered a decision in favour of the petitioner but that decision was
reversed by DARAB. On appeal to the CA, the appellate court rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Issue:
Whether or not the original homesteads issued under the public land act are automatically exempted
from the operation of land reform

Held:
Homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and retain the
original homesteads, only for "as long as they continue to cultivate" them. That
parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt
them from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by
the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their
lands from land reform coverage.