Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agrarian Case Digests
Agrarian Case Digests
Agrarian Case Digests
stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer. For FARM, this modality
of distribution is an anomaly to be annulled for being inconsistent with the basic
concept of agrarian reform ingrained in Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.
Administrative Law
Issue 1: W/N PARC has the authority to revoke the Stock Distribution Plan or SDP
Yes. Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve
the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. It may be
that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest
the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP, but such power or
authority is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary
implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it
as that which is expressed.
Following this doctrine, the conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock
distribution of the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the
power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan.
Constitutional Law
Issue 2: W/N the Court may exercise its power of judicial review over the
constitutionality of Sec 31 of RA 6657
No. First, the intervenor FARM failed to challenged the constitutionality of RA 6657,
Sec 31 at the earliest possible opportunity. It should have been raised as early as Nov
21, 1989, when PARC approved the SDP of HLI or at least within a reasonable time
thereafter.
Second, the constitutionality of RA 6657 is not the very lis mota of this case. Before
the SC, the lis mota of the petitions filed by the HLI is whether or not the PARC acted
with grave abuse of discretion in revoking the SDP of HLI. With regards to the
original positions of the groups representing the interests of the farmers, their very lis
mota is the non-compliance of the HLI with the SDP so that the the SDP may be
revoked. Such issues can be resolved without delving into the constitutionality of RA
6657.
Hence, the essential requirements in passing upon the constitutionality of acts of the
executive or legislative departments have not been met in this case.
Statutory Construction
The basic law allows two (2) modes of land distribution: direct and indirect
ownership. Direct transfer to individual farmers is the most commonly used method
by DAR and widely accepted. Indirect transfer through collective ownership of the
agricultural land is the alternative to direct ownership of agricultural land by
individual farmers. Sec. 4 EXPRESSLY authorizes collective ownership by farmers.
No language can be found in the 1987 Constitution that disqualifies or prohibits
corporations or cooperatives of farmers from being the legal entity through which
collective ownership can be exercised.
The word collective is defined as indicating a number of persons or things considered
as constituting one group or aggregate, while collectively is defined as in a collective
sense or manner; in a mass or body. By using the word collectively, the Constitution
allows for indirect ownership of land and not just outright agricultural land transfer.
This is in recognition of the fact that land reform may become successful even if it is
done through the medium of juridical entities composed of farmers.
The stock distribution option devised under Sec. 31 of RA 6657 hews with the agrarian
reform policy, as instrument of social justice under Sec. 4 of Article XIII of the
Constitution. Albeit land ownership for the landless appears to be the dominant
theme of that policy, the Court emphasized that Sec. 4, Article XIII of the
Constitution, as couched, does not constrict Congress to passing an agrarian reform
law planted on direct land transfer to and ownership by farmers and no other, or else
the enactment suffers from the vice of unconstitutionality. If the intention were
otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have worded said section in a
manner mandatory in character.
* The SC, through a resolution dated Nov 21 2011 of the motion for reconsideration
filed by HLI, affirmed the revocation of HLIs SDP and the placing of Hacienda
Luisita under the compulsory land distribution scheme of the CARP law. It was also
held that the date of taking was Nov 21 1989, when the PARC, by Resolution 89-12-2,
approved the SDP of HLI. ##
Olimpio Bonifacio to pay her the amount of P 1,376.00. The judgment was affirmed in
all other respects. 5
Still dissatisfied, private respondent Pastora San Miguel sought relief from this Court.
During the pendency of her petition, on August 7, 1983, Olimpio Bonifacio died. As
no notice of such death was given to the Court, no order for the substitution of his
heirs was made. On July 31, 1985, the Court En Banc resolved to deny private
respondent's petition for lack of merit and to affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals. 6
Subsequently, petitioners Rosalina Bonifacio, as surviving wife, and Gabriel,
Ponciano, Tiburcio, Beatriz, Generosa, Silveria, Leonardo, Felomena, Encarnacion and
Leonila all surnamed Bonifacio, as children and heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio, moved
for the execution of the decision in CAR Case No. 2160-B'68 before the respondent
Regional Trial Court of Bulacan. A writ of execution was issued on February 20, 1986
and on March 6, 1986, the Deputy Sheriff submitted his Report (Partial Delivery of
Possession), stating in part that except for a portion thereof occupied by the house of
Pastora San Miguel which the latter refused to vacate, he had delivered the land
subject matter of the action to Rosalina Bonifacio as surviving wife of Olimpio
Bonifacio.
Thereafter, private respondent Pastora San Miguel moved to quash the writ of
execution. This was opposed by petitioners who in turn sought the issuance of a writ
of demolition and an order declaring Pastora San Miguel in contempt of court for
allegedly re-entering the subject land.
After hearing, respondent Judge Natividad G. Dizon issued a resolution on July 15,
1986, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the implementation of the writ of execution of the
Decision dated September 18, 1970 made by the Sheriff of this
Court, per directive contained in our Order of February 18, 1986, is
hereby declared null and void; the "Motion for Demolition" filed by
plaintiff is hereby denied; and, the "Petition for Contempt" likewise
denied.
SO ORDERED. 7
Petitioners assail this resolution in the petition for certiorari filed before the Court of
Appeals, which as stated earlier, was certified to us pursuant to Section 9 (3) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 in relation to Section 5 (2) [e], Art. X of the 1973 Constitution and
Rule 50, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Petitioners contend that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that the decision in CAR Case No. 2160B'68 can no longer be executed as said action is purely personal in character and
therefore cannot, upon Olimpio Bonifacio's death, be inherited by his heirs. They
assert that CAR Case No. 2160-B'68, being an ejectment case and not one of those
specifically provided by law to be purely personal, survives the death of a party.
Furthermore, as under Rule 39, Section 49 (b) of the Rules of Court, a judgment is
binding not only upon the parties but also on their successors-in-interest, petitioners
are entitled to enforce the decision in CAR Case No. 2160-B'68.
Private respondent, on the other hand, places stress on the fact that the action under
consideration is not an ordinary ejectment case but an agrarian case for the ejectment
of an agricultural lessee. She theorizes that the right being asserted in the action is
personal to Olimpio Bonifacio, which necessarily died with him. She further contends
that the non-substitution of Olimpio Bonifacio by his heirs rendered the proceedings
taken after his death null and void. She also points to certain supervening events
which allegedly prohibit execution of the judgment in CAR Case No. 2160-B'68, to
wit: the amendment of Section 36 (1), R.A. 3844 by R.A. No. 6389 and 2) the
promulgation of P.D. No. 27.
Private respondent is correct in characterizing CAR Case No. 2160-B'68 as more than
an ordinary ejectment case. It is, indeed, an agrarian case for the ejectment of an
agricultural lessee, which in the light of the public policy involved, is more closely
and strictly regulated by the State. This factor, however, does not operate to bar the
application to the instant case of the general rule that an ejectment case survives the
death of a party. 8
Much of the problem lies in the term "personal cultivation" by which the ground for
ejectment under Section 36 (1) of R.A. 3844 was loosely referred. As it is, the term
gave the impression that the ejectment of an agricultural lessee was allowed only if
and when the landowner-lessor and no other opted to cultivate the landholding;
thereby giving use to a bigger misconception that the right of cultivation pertained
exclusively to the landowner-lessor, and therefore his personal right alone. A reading
of Section 36 (1), R.A. 3844 however readily demonstrates the fallacy of this
interpretation. Said section provides:
Sec. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. Notwithstanding
any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an
agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession
of his landholding except when his dispossession has been
authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if
after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of the immediate
family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the
landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or
school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes . . . .
Under this provision, ejectment of an agricultural lessee was authorized not only
when the landowner-lessor desired to cultivate the landholding, but also when a
member of his immediate family so desired. In so providing, the law clearly did not
intend to limit the right of cultivation strictly and personally to the landowner but to
extend the exercise of such right to the members of his immediate family. Clearly
then, the right of cultivation as a ground for ejectment was not a right exclusive and
personal to the landowner-lessor. To say otherwise would be to put to naught the
right of cultivation likewise conferred upon the landowner's immediate family
members.
The right of cultivation was extended to the landowner's immediate family members
evidently to place the landowner-lessor in parity with the agricultural lessee who was
(and still is) allowed to cultivate the land with the aid of his farm household. In this
regard, it must be observed that an agricultural lessee who cultivates the landholding
with the aid of his immediate farm household is within the contemplation of the law
engaged in "personal cultivation."
Thus, whether used in reference to the agricultural lessor or lessee, the term "personal
cultivation" cannot be given a restricted connotation to mean a right personal and
exclusive to either lessor or lessee. In either case, the right extends to the members of
the lessor's or lessee's immediate family members.
Petitioners are not only the heirs and successors-in-interest, but the immediate family
members of the deceased landowner-lessor as well. The right to cultivate the
landholding asserted in CAR Case No. 2160-B'68 not being a purely personal right of
the deceased landowner-lessor, the same was transmitted to petitioners as heirs and
successors-in-interest. Petitioners are entitled to the enforcement of the judgment in
CAR Case No. 2160-B'68.
Rules of procedure make it the duty of the attorney to inform the court promptly of
his client's death, incapacity or incompetency during the pendency of the action and
to give the name and residence of his executor, administrator, guardian or other legal
representative. 9 In case of a party's death, the court, if the action survives, shall then
order upon proper notice the legal representatives of the deceased to appear and to
be substituted for the deceased within a period of 30 days or within such time as may
be granted. 10
In the case at bar, Olimpio Bonifacio's death during the pendency of private
respondent's petition was not communicated to the Court. As ruled by this Court in
the case of Florendo, Jr. vs. Coloma, supra, involving substantially the same facts and
issue:
. . . The petitioners challenge the proceeding in the Court of
Appeals after the death of the plaintiff-appellant Adela Salindon.
They are of the opinion that since there was no legal representative
substituted for Salindon after her death, the appellate court lost its
Meanwhile on December 22, 1978, the Office of the Solicitor General filed in behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines a notice of appeal, as well as a first motion for
extension of thirty (30) days from January 12, 1979 within which to file record on
appeal which was granted by respondent court. The Solicitor General was appealing
from that portion of the December 8, 1978 decision of the Court of First Instance
which fixed the compensation for the land expropriated at Thirty Pesos (P30.00) per
square meter. Counsel for private respondents filed an objection to the public
respondent's record on appeal claiming that the same was filed beyond the
reglementary period. On August 13, 1979 the Court of First Instance dismissed the
appeal interposed by the Republic. The Office of the Solicitor General moved for
reconsideration but this was denied for lack of merit. Thereafter, public respondent
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus with preliminary injunction seeking the annulment of the orders of the
Court of First Instance. On April 29, 1980, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision
dismissing public respondent's petition. On October 24, 1980, public respondent filed
with this Court a petition, docketed as G.R. No. 54886, asking this Court to annul the
decision of the Court of Appeals and to direct and compel the lower court to approve
the Government's record on appeal and to elevate the same to the Court of Appeals.
In a decision dated August 10, 1981, the Court granted the petition and directed the
trial court to approve the Government's record on appeal and to elevate the same to
the Court of Appeals.
I.
The principal issue raised in the petition centers on the alleged right of petitioners to
intervene in the expropriation proceedings instituted by the State against private
respondents as registered owner of the subject property.
Intervention is not a matter of right but may be permitted by the courts when the
applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing
intervention [Gibson v. Revilla, G.R. No. L-41432, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 219]. Under
Section 2, Rule 12 of the Revised Rules of Court, what qualifies a person to intervene
is his possession of a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either
of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely
affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court
or an officer thereof. The Court has ruled that such interest must be actual, direct and
material, and not simply contingent and expectant [Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279
(1939); Batama Farmer's Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. v. Rosal, G.R. No. L30526, November 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 408; Gibson v. Revilla, supra].
In the present case, petitioners claim that Celso Pagtalunan possesses legal interest in
the matter in litigation for he, not private respondents herein, is the party entitled to
just compensation for the subject property sought to be expropriated or, in the
alternative, disturbance compensation as a bona fide tenant based on Section 36 (1) of
Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6389.
Petitioners base their claim for just compensation on Certificate of Land Transfer No.
NS-054560 issued to them, where the tenant farmer/grantee is "deemed owner" of the
agricultural land identified therein. * Petitioners contend that the certificate is a
muniment of title evidencing their legal ownership of a portion of the subject
property. Thus, they conclude that they are entitled to a portion of the proceeds from
the expropriation proceedings instituted over the subject property.
There is no merit to the above contention.
the tenant farmer in fifteen (15) equal annual amortization, that the
tenant framer must be a member of a Barrio Association upon
organization of such association in his locality, and that the title to the
land herein shall not be transferred except by hereditary succession or to
the Government in accordance with the provisions of Presidential Decree
Number 27, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and
regulations.
xxx xxx xxx
The Court is fully aware that the phrase "deemed to be the owner" is used to describe
the grantee of a certificate of land transfer. But the import of such phrase must be
construed within the policy framework of Pres. Decree No. 27, and interpreted with
the other stipulations of the certificate issued pursuant to this decree.
Pres. Decree No. 27 (otherwise known as the "Tenant Emancipation Decree") was
anchored upon the fundamental objective of addressing valid and legitimate
grievances of land ownership giving rise to violent conflict and social tension in the
countryside. More importantly, it recognized the necessity to encourage a more
productive agricultural base of the country's economy. To achieve this end, the decree
laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers, long recognized as the
backbone of the economy, of the lands they were tilling. Landowners of agricultural
lands which were devoted primarily to rice and corn production and exceeded the
minimum retention area were thus compelled to sell, through the intercession of the
government, their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and conditions.
However, a careful study of the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 27, and the certificate
of land transfer issued to qualified farmers, will reveal that the transfer of ownership
over these lands is subject to particular terms and conditions the compliance with
which is necessary in order that the grantees can claim the right of absolute
ownership over them.
A certificate of land transfer issued pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 27 provides:
xxx xxx xxx
I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, declare
that _________ having manifested his desire to own the land under
his cultivation and having complied with the implementing rules
and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform, is hereby
deemed to be the owner of the agricultural land described as
follows:
xxx xxx xxx
subject to the conditions that the cost of the portion herein transferred to
the tenant farmer as fixed by the authorities concerned, including the
interest rate at the rate of six percentum (6%) per annum shall be paid by
II.
On the issue of jurisdiction, petitioners contend that since their motion to intervene
alleges as justification therefor that petitioner Celso Pagtalunan is the bona fide tenant
of the subject property, the case should have been referred to the Court of Agrarian
Relations which has original and exclusive jurisdiction over expropriation
proceedings for public purpose of all kinds of tenanted properties.
The Court finds no reason to dwell on this point. The issue of what court has
jurisdiction over the expropriation proceedings in this case has been rendered moot
and academic by B.P. Blg. 129. Under Paragraph 7, Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, all civil
actions and special proceedings which were then under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations were placed under the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts [formerly the Courts of First Instance].
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Fernan, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano and Bidin, JJ., concur.
omissions in the Stipulations, the remedy of appeal before the appellate court
resorted to by the bank is proper because it involved not only pure questions of law
but mixed questions of law and fact. 2. Resolution 75-68 governs issuance of Land
Bank Bonds to assignees; LBP issues bonds in name of assignor-landowner The bank,
in denying the issuance of the bond in the name of the assignee, was guided by
Resolution 75-68 entitled Proper Parties to Receive Land Transfer Payment
promulgated purposely to govern, among others, the issuance of Land Bank Bonds to
assignees by virtue of Deeds of Assignment. Thereunder the LBP can only issue
bonds in the name of the assignor-landowner. It is only after the issuance of bonds in
the landowners name that he shall be required to make the necessary indorsement of
the bonds to his assignee. This is in consonance with the Land Banks policy to deal
primarily with the landowners in order to save time and effort in ascertaining the
identities of claimants.
3. Assignment of Land Transfer Claim subject to the rules and restrictions imposed by
LBP Gonzales relied on the provisions of Article 1311 of the Civil Code, i.e. that by
virtue of said deed, he stepped into the shoes of his assignor and acquired all the
rights of the latter. Gonzales indeed stepped into the shoes of his assignor, but he
overlooked the fact that when the corporation assigned its rights to him under Land
Transfer Claim 82-757, the same was subject to the rules and restrictions imposed by
LBP on the matter of assignment of rights. 4. Rules and regulation on the issuance of
Bonds, based on Section 76 of RA 3844, as amended by PD 251 In the promulgation of
said rules and regulations, the LBP relied on the provisions of Section 76, RA 3844 as
amended by PD 251, which specifically provides that the Board of Directors shall
have the power to prescribe rules and regulations for the issuance, reissuance,
servicing, placement and redemption of the bonds herein authorized to be issued as
well as the registration of such bonds at the request of the holders thereof. 5.
Assignment does not erase liens or restrictions burdening the right assigned The act
of assignment could not operate to erase liens or restrictions burdening the right
assigned. The assignee cannot, after all, acquire a greater right than that pertaining to
the assignor. In the present case, when the corporation assigned its rights, title and
interest in Land Transfer Claim 82-757 for the amount of P400,000.00 in favor of
Gonzales, the latter acquired the same subject to the restrictions on assignment of
rights embodied in Resolution 75-68 dated 25 February 1975 passed by the Board of
respondent LBP. 6. Pertinent provision of Resolution 85-68 In Assignment of Rights
entered into by landowners vesting upon the Assignee the right to receive full or
partial payment from the Land Bank pursuant to land transfer, the same, if found
valid in form and substance, shall be recognized by the Land Bank. Whenever
practicable, Land Bank bonds issued therefor must be made payable to the AssignorLandowner who shall be required to make the necessary indorsement of said bonds
to the Assignee. In case the cash portion is the one assigned, the check in payment
thereof shall be issued to the original landowner who shall be required to make the
indorsement to the Assignee. Thus, for record purposes, it will appear that payment
was directly to the landowner concerned and who, by reason of the Assignment, has
caused the necessary indorsement of the bonds and/or check, as the case may be, to
the Assignee. 7. Administrative regulations and policies have force of law and
entitled to great respect; their legality is presumed It is an elementary rule in
possession and cultivation of the said landholding since 1958 but the petitioners, for
unknown reasons and without the knowledge of respondent Laxamana, planted
palay thereon in 1984 through force and intimidation after plowing and harrowing
were done by respondent Laxamana; and that due to the petitioners' illegal actions,
respondent Laxamana suffered damages in the amount of P500.00 and the price
equivalent to sixty-five (65) cavans of palay per agricultural year from the time of his
dispossession until his reinstatement as tenant over the landholding in question.
In their answer, the petitioners counter-alleged, among others, that their tenancy
relationship with respondent Laxamana was terminated pursuant to a document
captioned "Casunduan" executed on March 30, 1973 whereby the latter sold his rights
and interests over the agricultural landholding under litigation for a consideration of
P1,000.00; that respondent Laxamana was not actually a tenant of the petitioners and
whatever tenancy rights the former had exercised over the landholding in question
were voluntarily surrendered by him upon the execution of the aforesaid document;
that respondent Laxamana had only himself to blame for the litigation expenses
resulting from his baseless and patently frivolous complaint; and that respondent
Laxamana was no longer entitled to the amount equivalent to 65 cavans of palay per
agricultural year as claimed since he was no longer a tenant of the petitioners.
After trial, the private respondent obtained a favorable judgment from which the
petitioners appealed to the respondent Court.
In a decision promulgated on March 3, 1987, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court's holding that the Casunduan even if assumed to be valid did not constitute
"voluntary surrender" as contemplated by law, hence, respondent Laxamana ought to
be reinstated as tenant of the petitioners' landholding.
Consequently, this petition was filed to seek a reversal of the decision of the appellate
court. According to the petitioners, the Court of Appeals erred:
I
sell his "puesto cung asican" or "the plot I am farming" to the couple. A subscribing
witness, Ermela Lumanlan testified on the voluntary sale of tenancy rights for
P1,000.00, her signing as a witness at the bottom of the contract, and Laxamana's
signing the document.
The argument of the private respondent that under Section 28 of the Agrarian Reform
Code, a voluntary surrender to be valid must be "due to circumstances more
advantageous to him and his family" is double-edged. There appears no question that
Laxamana needed money to pay for the expenses incident to the illness of his wife
which led to her death. The money was to his advantage.
The basic issue in this case is-what did Laxamana give up in return for the P1,000.00?
The case is marked by poor handling at the trial stage and it is not clear whether or
not the P1,000.00 was a result of the usual paternalistic arrangements between
landlords and tenants where the latter meekly approach the landlords in their hours
of need or something else.
In the first place, the agreement was prepared by petitioner Visitacion A. Talavera.
Laxamana could hardly sign his own name. He was clearly at a disadvantage in the
execution of the contract and the wording of the agreement. The intention to give up
the landholding must be gleaned from evidence in addition to the document which
was signed by an ignorant and illiterate peasant in an hour of emotional stress and
financial need.
Second, and most important, Laxamana continued to work on the farm from 1973 up
to 1984 when the petitioners ejected him. As stated by the appellate court, why did it
take the petitioners more than ten years to enforce the Casunduan?
The Talaveras claim that they cultivated the land themselves from 1973 to 1984 when
the complaint was filed. This claim is belied by Exhibits A and B. In Exhibit A,
barangay captain Francisco Manayang reports to the team leader of the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform that, per his own personal knowledge, Jose Laxamana has been
tilling the disputed land since 1958. Exhibit B is an affidavit to the same effect by
Manayang, Mr. Porfirio Manabat who is president of the Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries Association, and a certain Romeo dela Cruz all of whom are residents of
the barangay where the land is located. Significantly, Laxamana is a resident of Sitio
Tambo, Barangay Sto. Domingo II where the disputed land is situated while the
Talaveras reside in another barangay, Arangureng, of Capas, Tarlac. We see no
reason why the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court should be
reversed insofar as the continuous cultivation from 1973 to 1984 is concerned.
Third, it is not shown why Laxamana should voluntarily give up his sole source of
livelihood even if he needed money to pay off his debts. Or what he did from 1973 to
1984 if the claim of the Talaveras that they worked the land themselves is correct. We
are more inclined to believe that Laxamana was forced by circumstances to sign
something he did not fully understand and then went right back to the farm and
continued to work on it until 1984.
It is true that Cristobal Gamido, Jr., officer-in-charge of the Agrarian Reform Team
issued on May 8, 1986 a certification that the contested land is not tenanted. However,
the basis for the certification whether or not Mr. Gamido merely read the Casunduan
literally is not shown. It cannot overcome the more convincing evidence of persons
actually residing where the land is located.
Tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons provided
by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence in line with the State's policy
of achieving a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious
institutional restraints and practices (Sec. 2 [2], Code of Agrarian Reforms).
We, therefore, rule that except for compelling reasons clearly proved the
determination that a person is a tenant-farmer, a factual conclusion made by the trial
court on the basis of evidence directly available to it, will not be reversed on appeal
and will be binding on us. (see Macaraeg v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 48008,
January 20, 1989; Co v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 162 SCRA 390 [1988]).
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
The decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 3, 1987 is AFFIRMED.
plaintiff Gavino Nisnisan, has totally shattered the claim of tenancy of Policarpio
Nisnisan. A fortiori therefore the claim for reinstatement has to fail. [7]
The above-quoted ruling of the trial court was affirmed by the respondent Court
of Appeals in its Decision dated November 20, 1995 which substantially adopted the
trial courts findings, thus:
The Memorandum of Encumbrances of appellant Gavinos OCT No. (P-11676)-2151
(Exhibits A to A-3) contain two entries of affidavit of non-tenancy. The first is Entry
No. 72086 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy under Justice Circular No. 31. The second
Entry No. 117718 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed by Gavino Nisnisan, vendor.
Also appellants-spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan executed a Joint Affidavit
dated January 28, 1985 wherein they averred the following:
9. That it is not true that our son and his wife were our tenants in the said land as
they did not give any share to us nor did we ask for it and any semblance of tenancy
they did have was only a ploy that did enable them to borrow under the Masagana 99
programs of the government which they did ultimately failed to pay but which we
paid as parents if only to save our son from being prosecuted and jailed for estafa. [8]
Aggrieved by the Court of Appeals decision, petitioners-spouses now come to
this Court on the sole issue of: Whether or not petitioners Spouses Policarpio and
Erlinda Nisnisan voluntarily surrendered their tenancy holding.
We find merit in the petition.
The finding of the Court of Appeals that the petitioners-spouses are not tenants
of the subject land holding is erroneous. While there are annotations in Gavino
Nisnisans certificate of title (Entry No. 72086 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy under
Justice Circular No. 31 and Entry No. 117718 for Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed
by Gavino Nisnisan) that the subject land is not tenanted, said annotations are not
conclusive proof of the real relationship between Gavino Nisnisan and petitioner
Policarpio Nisnisan and are not binding upon the court. As we have ruled in Cuao vs.
Court of Appeals,[9]
We believe and so hold that such annotation cannot be regarded as conclusive
upon the courts of justice as to the legal nature and incidents of the relationship
between the landowner(s) in this case and private respondents. Firstly, the
annotation serves basically as notice to all persons of the existence of the Certification
issued by Mr. Eugenio Bernardo,but neither adds to the validity or correctness of that
certification nor converts a defective and invalid instrument into a valid one as
between the parties. Secondly, the certification issued by Mr. Eugenio Bernardo of the
MAR (Ministry of Agrarian Reform) is very much like the certifications issued by the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform and other officials of the Ministry and later the
Department of Agrarian Reform concerning the existence of tenancy relationships in
respect of agricultural lands from which persons, who claim to be tenants, are sought
to be ejected. It is well-settled that the findings of or certifications issued by the
3. there is consent
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 20, 1995 is
hereby MODIFIED in that, petitioners-spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan are
declared tenants and AFFIRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Melo, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur
The tenancy relationship dated back to 1976 when the defendants father, Sotero
Pascual, became the tenant of Jose A. Resurreccion, the President of
the Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation. This tenancy continued until 1991
when Sotero Pascual died and was succeeded by his wife Ann Pascual by operation
of law. That Ana Pascual is entitled to the security of tenure was upheld by the
DARAB in its Decision of November 8, 1993 which ordered the plaintiff to respect
and maintain the peaceful possession and cultivation of the property by the
defendant Ana Pascual and ordered the execution of a agricultural leasehold contract
between the parties.
The defendant Herminigildo Pascual is occupying and working on the landholding to
help his mother, a bona-fide tenant. He is an immediate member of the family and is
entitled to work on the land. As the lower court held:
Under Republic Act No. 1199, as amended by RA 2263, entitled An Act to Govern the
Relations Between Landholders and Tenants of Agricultural Lands (Leasehold and
Share Tenancy), Section 5(a) defines the term tenant, to wit:
Sec. 5.
(a) A tenant shall mean a person who, himself and with the aid available from within
his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by,
another, with the latters consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce
with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a
price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold
tenancy system.
Similarly, the term immediate farm household is defined in the same section as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, this Court hereby orders that the instant
case be REMANDED to the DARAB for further adjudication and the decision of the
Court a quo is hereby SET ASIDE x x x. [2]
(o) Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the tenant, and
such other persons, whether related to the tenant or not, who are dependent upon
him for support and who usually help him operate the farm enterprise.
The defendant, although not the tenant himself, is afforded the protection provided
by law as his mother is already old and infirm and is allowed to avail of the labor of
her immediate household. He is entitled to the security of tenure accorded his
mother. His having a house of his own on the property is merely incidental to the
tenancy.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with costs against the
petitioner. [5] (Underscoring supplied.)
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari
anchored on a lone assignment of error, to wit:
Petitioner respectfully contends that the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not
finding that while the private respondent is entitled to work on the agricultural land
of petitioner in his capacity as member of the family of tenant Ana Pascual,
nonetheless he can not occupy a substantial portion thereof and utilize the same for
residential purposes. [6]
On August 19, 1996, the Court gave due course to the petition and required the
parties to submit their respective memoranda. Thereafter, the Court deliberated on
the arguments set out in their pleadings.
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner does not dispute respondent courts
finding that Ana Pascual, private respondents mother, is its bona-fide tenant. Neither
does petitioner question the right of Ana Pascual, the tenant, to be assisted by a
member of her household, who in this case is respondent Herminigildo
Pascual. [7] What petitioner impugns as erroneous is respondent courts gratuitous
pronouncement which effectively granted private respondent not only a home lot,
but also the right to maintain his own house in petitioners small parcel of
land [8] despite the fact that Ana Pascual, the adjudged bona-fide tenant, has
previously been given a home lot and has an existing house thereon. Private
respondent Herminigildo Pascual, for his part, insists that he is entitled by
law, (Section 22, (3) of Rep. Act No.1199, as amended by Rep. Act No. 2263), [9] to a
home lot and the right to maintain another house different from that of his
mother. To bolster his contention, private respondent adopts respondent courts
ruling finding him as a member of Ana Pascuals immediate farm household. Private
respondent holds, quoting extensively from the assailed decision, that although not
the tenant himself, [he] is afforded the protection provided by law as his mother is
already old and infirm and is allowed to avail of the labor of her immediate
household. x x x. [And] [h]is having a house of his own on the property is merely
incidental to the tenancy. [10]
As the Court sees it, the issue lies on the interpretation of Section 22, paragraph
3, of Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended by Rep. Act No. 2263. This section provides in
full as follows:
SEC. 22
xxxxxxxxx
(3) The tenant shall have the right to demand for a home lot suitable for dwelling
with an area of not more than 3 per cent of the area of his landholding provided that
it does not exceed one thousand square meters and that it shall be located at a
convenient and suitable place within the land of the landholder to be designated by
the latter where the tenant shall construct his dwelling and may raise vegetables,
poultry, pigs and other animals and engage in minor industries, the products of
which shall accrue to the tenant exclusively. The tenants dwelling shall not be
removed from the lot already assigned to him by the landholder, except as provided
Section 12 of RA No. 3844 as amended by RA No. 6389 provides Sec. 12. Lessee's right of Redemption. - In case the landholding is sold to a third person
without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to
redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration x x x x The right of
redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days
from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and
the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale x x x x The
redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale x x x
x
Simply stated, in the event that the landholding is sold to a third person without
the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter is granted by law the right to
redeem it within one hundred eighty (180) days from notice in writing and at a
reasonable price and consideration. Petitioner was not notified of the first and second
instances of sale of the property apparently because all the respondents disputed
petitioner's assertion that he has been a tenant thereon since 1951. These instances of
sale without notification gave rise to his right to redeem the property as lessee
although no longer from the Leonardos but from its present owner, respondent
Bitoon.
A letter dated 24 November 1986 from the counsel of respondent Bitoon was
received by petitioner informing him that the ownership of subject property has been
transferred to respondent Bitoon. However the counsel did not bother to furnish
petitioner with the supporting documents which is why petitioner did not readily
believe what was written in the letter.Petitioner had to proceed to the Notarial
Division of the Capitol Building on 2 March 1987 to secure a copy of the deed of sale
between spouses Leonardo and respondent Bitoon.
The purpose of the written notice required by law is to remove all uncertainties
as to the sale, its terms and its validity, and to quiet any doubts that the alienation is
not definitive. The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any
distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner. So long as the redemptioner is
informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof, the period for redemption
will start running.[9] The letter received by petitioner, being bare, was not such
written notice. It failed to make certain the terms, particulars and validity of the
sale. Rather, only a copy of the deed of sale, in an authentic form, will satisfy the
requirement of the law and serve the purpose thereof. Thus, it is proper to reckon the
period of redemption from receipt of the authentic document on 2 March 1987. The
amended complaint filed on 27 July 1987 is well within the redemption period of one
hundred eighty (180) days.
The preceding discussion leads us to the requirement concerning reasonable
price and consideration. An offer to redeem to be properly effected can either be
through a formal tender with consignation or by filing a complaint in court coupled
with consignation of the redemption price within the prescribed period. [10] It must be
stressed however that in making a repurchase it is not sufficient that a person offering
to redeem merely manifests his desire to repurchase; this statement of intention must
from whom the petitioners must redeem, if and when PNB decides to sell or alienate
the subject property in the future x x x x
Respondent appellate court must have taken out of context our statement
therein when the former ruled that "if respondent Bitoon decides to sell the land then
petitioner can still exercise his rights under the law." The phrase in the Velasquez case
that "if and when PNB decides to sell or alienate the subject property in the
future" logically refers to "its subsequent transferees" only, and not as a condition
precedent to the exercise of the right of redemption as what respondent court
perceived it to be. To further stress the matter, the ruling of respondent court
overlooks the essence of redemption provided in the amended Sec. 12 of RA No. 3844
which, as previously mentioned, grants to the lessee such right in case the property is
sold to a third person without his knowledge. Since that situation obtained
in Velasquez, the Velasquez spouses had the right to redeem the property from the
PNB as new owner. The circumstance that the property was sold to a third person
without the knowledge of the lessee provides the source from which the right of
redemption springs. Analyzing this right, it may be stated that such right works only
one way - in favor of the redemptioner. For he can compel the purchaser to sell but he
cannot be compelled to buy. Supposing the lessee failed to redeem the property and
the purchaser decided to sell or alienate it without notifying the former, the property
may be redeemed from the subsequent transferee because another essence of the right
of
redemption
is
that
it
attaches
to a particular landholding by operation of law.[14] The plain import of the obiter
dictum in
the Velasquez case
is
that
the
Velasquez
spouses may redeem the property from the PNB as new owner, or
should PNB decide to sell the property they may redeem the same from its
transferee. Thus, contrary to the assertion of petitioner, Velasquez is applicable but not
as so applied by respondent court; instead, it should have based its main ruling on
the lack of interest to redeem the property at the acquisition price paid by respondent
Bitoon.
Hence we reiterate that, for failure of petitioner to consign the entire redemption
price, there was no valid exercise by him of his legal right to redeem.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of
Appeals (1) declaring petitioner as tenant of Bernarda and Rosario Galan and
thereafter of their successor-in-interest, Antonio Leonardo Sr. and Josefa Galan, and
in turn, of the present owner respondent Bitoon; (2) ordering respondent Jose Bitoon
to reinstate petitioner as agricultural tenant and to maintain him in the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the land tenanted by him; (3) ordering the Clerk of
Court of the trial court to return to petitioner the amount of P2,000.00 which he
consigned as redemption price for the land in question covered by O.R. No. 9802404
J dated 30 October 1986, with no pronouncement as to costs, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide Jr., Vitug, Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ. concur.