Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Clifford Hawkins was the registered owner of two agricultural land parcels in Piat, Cagayan. In 2001, these lands were included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme. Respondent Diana H. Mendoza, claiming to be Clifford Hawkins' heir, filed an application for retention of several lots within these parcels that had already been awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Procedural History: The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) initially recommended approval of Mendoza's retention application, subject to tenants remaining. However, the DAR Provincial Office recommended dismissal due to Mendoza's failure to submit required documents and an implied waiver of retention rights by Clifford Hawkins through the VOS. The DAR Regional Office and the DAR Secretary affirmed this denial, citing the lack of intent from Clifford to exercise his retention right and Mendoza's failure to prove her relationship to Clifford or her right to inherit. Mendoza appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which remanded the case to the DAR Regional Director to determine the identity of the VOS executor, their authority, and the effects on the heirs' rights. The Petition: The Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. The petition argues that the determination of compliance with retention requirements falls within the DAR's expertise and that Mendoza failed to prove her entitlement as an heir or that Clifford Hawkins manifested an intention to retain prior to August 23, 1990. The petition also contends that Mendoza's claim of inheritance implicitly recognizes the validity of the VOS, and she should have challenged it earlier if it were invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the DAR Regional Director for determination of the validity of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and its effects on the rights of the heirs. Whether the denial of respondent's application for retention was in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and established jurisprudence.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Orders of the DAR Secretary denying respondent's application for retention.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals remanding the case and the validity of the VOS: The Supreme Court held that the validity of the VOS was never an issue before the DAR. Settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic consideration of due process impels this rule. Therefore, the CA's conclusion that the DAR "invariably evaded to pass upon the issue of who actually executed the VOS" was without basis. The Court further noted that even if the case were remanded, the issue of the alleged nullity of the VOS would be immaterial to the application for retention. The Court also stated that it is not necessary for the voluntary offeror to be the registered owner, and respondent had not shown proof of acquiring the lands before the VOS or objected to it at the earliest opportunity. On the denial of respondent's application for retention: The Supreme Court sustained the DAR's denial. The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, subject to legislative qualification. DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2, series of 2003, specifically Section 3.3, provides that the right of retention of a deceased landowner may be exercised by his heirs, provided they first show proof that the decedent landowner had manifested during his lifetime his intention to exercise his right of retention prior to August 23, 1990. The respondent, claiming to be an heir, filed the application in her name as owner, but the supporting documents indicated Clifford Hawkins as the registered owner. The Court found that the submitted documents were insufficient to support her application as landowner or as an heir. She failed to establish her relationship to Clifford, his death, his manifestation of intent to retain, and that such manifestation occurred before August 23, 1990. The belated submission of her birth certificate and Clifford's death certificate to the CA violated due process and undermined the DAR's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the lands were already subject to a VOS in 2001 without any manifestation from the landowner to exercise the right of retention, which under the VOS scheme, implies a waiver. Thus, respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to the right of retention.
Main Doctrine
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, subject to legislative qualification. For heirs to exercise the right of retention of a deceased landowner, they must prove not only their relationship but also that the decedent landowner had manifested during his lifetime his intention to exercise such right prior to August 23, 1990. Furthermore, the exercise of the right of retention under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme must be done at the time the land is offered for sale; otherwise, it is deemed waived.