Is there a conflict between R.A. 6657 and the Civil Code provisions on Succession?
IS THERE A CONFLICT BETWEEN R.A. 6657 OR KNOWN AS “THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988” AND THE CIVIL CODE PROVISIONS ON SUCCESSION?
This was answered by the Supreme Court in a more recent case of DAR vs. Itliong, et. al., G.R. №235086, July 6, 2022.
The factual issue of this case revolves around as to who should be considered owner of the land at the time of the Notice of Coverage (NOC) pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. 6657, which provides that a landowner may retain 5-hectares of its agricultural land. In the said case, the land subject of dispute is a 22.3377-hectare agricultural land conjugally owned by Spouses Dakanay. The wife died and was succeeded by her husband and four (4) children. A year later, an NOC was issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) over the entire 22.3377 hectares addressed only to the surviving spouse. The surviving children questioned the said NOC by virtue of Article 777 of the Civil Code, to wit: “The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.” They argued that they have inherited the subject land from their mother, making each of them landowners in their own right, hence, they should be entitled for the “right of retention” under Section 6 of R.A. 6657. That at the time the NOC was issued, the subject landholding already had several owners. And since the NOC was only addressed to their father, the same should be invalid.
Contrary to the argument of the heirs, the DAR, through its Secretary, argued that the reckoning point should be that of the effectivity of the law itself and not at the time of death of the deceased, i.e. all lands enumerated in R.A. 6657 are covered by the CARL at the time of its effectivity on June 15, 1988. The sending of NOC is merely a notice to the landowner that DAR will start its acquisition processes over the land. They infer that it should be the deceased mother who should be entitled to exercise the right of retention and not the heirs. Should their mother died before the effectivity of the law, they may be entitled the right of retention. The DAR Secretary further argued that RA 6657 prevails over the Civil Code, the former being a special law while the latter a general law.
The Court sided with the DAR Secretary that the reckoning point as to who should be entitled to exercise the right of retention is the landowner at the time of the effectivity of the law — the deceased mother. However, as to the conflict between R.A. 6657 and the law on succession, the Court, nevertheless, took a neutral stand. It said that R.A. 6657 and the Civil Code may be applied harmoniously as the the legislators envisioned the simultaneous application of RA 6657 and the provisions of the Civil Code on succession in the bicameral committee’s deliberation. While R.A. 6657 allows a retention limit of up to 5 hectares to the landowner and may grant up to 3 hectares to qualified children of the landowner, if the child does not meet said qualifications, then he or she may only inherit the property of his or her parents. In other words, a child of the landowner who does not meet the qualifications under the law are not entitled to a separate retention limit but may only step into the shoes of their decedent parents by virtue of succession. In any case, said child is entitled to his or her rights under the provisions of the Civil Code on succession.
I humbly submit, however, that the Court has not yet categorically ruled out the question of law raised by the parties in this case. Perhaps, this question may still be brought up again in the future depending on the facts of the case. And while the Court emphasized that both contentions of the parties to this case were wrong, it seems that they rule more in favor of the position of DAR.
