Digest & Principle by: Catherine Y. Vega (For Agra, Atty.
Noel Felongco) SY 2020-2021
DAR QUEZON CITY & PABLO MENDOZA,
petitioners, vs. ROMEO C. CARRIEDO
[G.R. No. 176549. January 20, 2016.]
Winner: Carriedo - did not waive his
retention rights.
Applicable Principles
1. Land Owners availing of Voluntary
Offer to Sell (VOS) are Disqualified to
be ARBs (Sec 48 DAR AO No 7-11)
● LO who voluntary offers their
landholding for coverage under CARP
● LO previously waived their rights to
retain
NOTE: VO and waiver - construed to be
inability and/or unwillingness to cultivate the
land and make it productive.
2. (7) Qualified Beneficiaries (Sec 22 RA
6657 effective June 10, 1988)
1. Agricultural lessee or share
tenants
2. Regular farm worker
3. Seasonal farmworker
4. Other farmworkers
5. Actual tillers or occupants of
public land
6. collective/cooperative of above
beneficiaries
7. Other directly working on the
land
3. RA 6657 Sec 6 Retention Limits​ - LO
can retain not more than 5 hectares of
land; must be contiguous and
compact; their children can be
awarded 3 hectares each given that
they are at least 15 years old &
actually tilling/managing the land.
a. Right to choose the area - with
the LO. Should be compact and
contiguous.
b. If there are tenants - 2 options
i. Remain as tenants - he
will become a
leaseholder and loose
beneficiary rights under
RA 6657
ii. Beneficiary of the same
land or another
agricultural land - loses
his right as leaseholder
to the said land.
Tenants have (1) one year to decide on the
options from the time LO manifests his choice
of the area for retention.
4. Purpose of Right of Retention by LO
● constitutionally guaranteed rights to
the LO.
● mitigate the effects of compulsory land
acquisition by balancing the rights of
the LO and the tenant
● Social justice - not meant to perpetrate
an injustice against the LO.
FACTS:
● 73.3157 hectares of agricultural land
owned by Roman De Jesus (Roman)
● May 23, 1972 Pablo Mendoza became
a tenant ; he pays Roman 25 piculs of
sugar eventually P2,000/yr
● 1979 Roman died - land was inherited
by wife and 2 sons (Antonio & Mario)
● June 12, 1986 - Mario sold approx. 70,
4788 hectares to Romeo Carriedo -
including the tenanted land of
Mendoza TCT 17680
● Mendoza - alleged he was not made
aware of the sale
● June 1990 - Carriedo sold all
landholdings to PLFI (represented by
its Pres. Buscayno) EXCEPT TCT
17680 - subjected to Voluntary Land
Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme &
were awarded to agrarian reform
beneficiaries in 1997
● 1990- Carried filed an ejectment and
rental case vs. Mendoza
Courts Rulings:
● PARAD - ruled that Mendoza has
knowledge of the sale - conveyance by
Digest & Principle by: Catherine Y. Vega (For Agra, Atty. Noel Felongco) SY 2020-2021
Carriedo was valid. Leasehold
terminated ordered Mendoza to vacat
● DARAB - ownership belongs to
Carriedo - subrogated with rights of
ownership by previous owner Roman
● CA - affirmed. Sec 6 RA No. 6657 is
not a ground to nullify the sale (Roman
& Carriedo)
● Mendoza & daughter - Filed petition of
coverage under RA No. 6657. Claimed
to have physical & material possession
of the land as tenants since 1956, &
made the land productive.
● RD granted & placed the land under
CARP.
● DAR-CO - ruled that Carriedo has NO
retention rights.
○ His acts of disposing the lands
were tantamount to a valid
waiver of retention rights.
CA - Carriedo did not commit any acts w/c
constitutes waiving his retention rights.
<Insert purpose of Retention rights>
Regional Director ARGUMENT
**Carriedo waived his rights because
(1) failure or neglect for an unreasonable
length of time to do that which he may have
done earlier by exercising due diligence,
warranting a presumption that he abandoned
his right or declined to assert it
(2) Didn't file an application of retention over a
considerable amount of time since DAR
acquired it for distribution to qualified farmer
beneficiaries.
(3) CLOAs granted to Mendoza and Gomez
are under Torrens system.
-----------xxxxxx---------------
DAR’s Argument - ​Carriedo violated par. 4
Sec 6 of RA 6657 because he disposed of his
agricultural lands, he lost his rights of
retention.
“Upon the effectivity (June 10, 1988) of this
Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management,
contract or transfer of possession of private
lands executed by the original landowner in
violation of the Act shall be null and void.“
No - applicable law is Sec 6 DAR 02-03 -
disposal of agricultural land is not an act that
constitutes waiver of right to retention. Not
even the sale made by Carriedo to PIL is
considered a waiver of retention.
ISSUE: ​WON Carried has the right to retain
the land.
RULING:
Yes - Carriedo did not waive his rights of
retention.
1. Retention guaranteed by 1987
Constitution Article XIII, Sec. 4
State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
such priorities and reasonable retention limits
as the Congress may prescribed.
2. RA 6657 Sec 6 Retention Limits
(Scroll up under applicable principles)
3. Carriedo's alleged failure to
exercise his right of retention after a
long period of time constituted a
waiver of his retention rights
Sec 4 DAR AO 02-03 --THIS IS THE
APPLICABLE LAW AT THAT TIME
Section 4 of DAR AO 02-03 provides:
Section 4. Period to Exercise Right of
Retention under RA 6657. —
The landowner may exercise his right of
retention at any time before receipt of notice of
coverage.
● Under the​ Compulsory Acquisition
(CA) scheme,​ the landowner shall
exercise his right of retention within
sixty (60) days from receipt of notice of
coverage.
Digest & Principle by: Catherine Y. Vega (For Agra, Atty. Noel Felongco) SY 2020-2021
● Under the​ Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS) and the Voluntary Land
Transfer (VLT)/Direct Payment
Scheme (DPS),​ the landowner shall
exercise his right of retention
simultaneously at the time of offer for
sale or transfer.

Carriedo any time before receipt of the notice

of coverage to exercise his right of retention

if under compulsory acquisition ​(as in this

case)​, ​within sixty (60) days from receipt of
the notice of coverage​.

>>validity of the notice of coverage is the very

subject of the controversy before this court.
>>the period within which Carriedo should
exercise his right of retention cannot
commence until final resolution of this case.

4. Carriedo filed an application for

retention Dec 13, 1999

NOTE: ​Nowhere in the relevant provisions of

RA No. 6657 does it indicate that a multiple or
series of transfers/sales of land would result in
the loss of retention rights. Neither do they
provide that the multiple or series of transfers
or sales amounts to the waiver of such right.

------------------XXXXXXX-------------------------