This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-11-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| If the land is covered by the OLT Program which hence, renders the right of retention operable, PD 27 issued on October 21, 1972 confers in favor of covered landowners who cultivate or intend to cultivate an area of their tenanted rice or corn land the right to retain an area of not more than seven (7) has. thereof.[32] Subsequently, or on June 10, 1998, Congress passed RA 6657 which modified the retention limits under PD 27. In particular, Section 6 of RA 6657 states that covered landowners are allowed to retain a portion of their tenanted agricultural land not, however, to exceed an area of five (5) has. and, further thereto, provides that an additional three (3) has. may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.[33] In the case of Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao[34] (Reyes), however, the Court held that a landowner's retention rights under RA 6657 are restricted by the conditions set forth in LOI 474 issued on October 21, 1976 which reads: WHEREAS, last year I ordered that small landowners of tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of less than twenty-four hectares but above seven hectares shall retain not more than seven hectares of such lands except when they own other agricultural lands containing more than seven hectares or land used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families; | |||||
|
2012-09-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao,[52] the Court held that LOI No. 474 provides for a restrictive condition on the exercise of the right of retention, specifically disqualifying landowners who "own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families."[53] The Court noted that the restrictive condition in LOI No. 474 is essentially the same one contained in Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991.[54] | |||||
|
2010-09-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Section 6 implies that the sole requirement in the exercise of retention rights is that the area chosen by the landowner must be compact or contiguous. In the recent case of Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao,[17] however, the Court held that a landowner's retention rights under R.A. 6657 are restricted by the conditions set forth in Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474 issued on October 21, 1976 which reads: To: The Secretary of Agrarian Reform. | |||||