Agrarian Reform Law Cases I

8/12/2019 Agrarian Reform Law Cases I

1/162

Table of Contents

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96492, November 26, 1992 216 SCRA 25....................................2

Chio vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122!"4, #a$uary 5, 199% 2%4 SCRA &&.........................................!

'ar(e vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 1"4!!4)!5, 'tober %, 199! 2%" SCRA 2&5..............................1"

*va$+elista vs. Court of Appeals 15% SCRA 41......................................................................................25

*$(aya vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. %%11&, 'tober 2&, 1992 215 SCRA 11"...................................&4

Cuao vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 1"!159, September 26, 1994 2&! SCRA 124..............................42

-hilippi$e Natio$al a$/ vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 1"5!6", #uly !, 199! 2!5 SCRA !1..............54

er$as vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. %5"41, Au+ust 5, 199& 225 SCRA 119.......................................6"

A+raria$ Reform Cases a$( their Abstrats.............................................................................................%!

0illaflor vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95694, 'tober 9, 199! 2%" SCRA 29%...................................%9

Republi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122256, 'tober &", 1996 26& SCRA !5%............................1&1

a$( a$/ of the -hilippi$es vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 11%!12, 'tober 6, 1995 249 SCRA 149

................................................................................................................................................................1&5

o$+so$ vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. !!1"4, November 6, 1992 215 SCRA 42%.............................145

3epartme$t of A+raria$ Reform A(u(iatio$ oar( vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 11&22")21,

#a$uary 21, 199! 266 SCRA 4"6...........................................................................................................15"


2/162

Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96492,

November 26, 1992 216 SCRA 25

SourceUR!httpelibrary.u(iiary.+ov.phtheboo/shelfsho7(osfrie$(ly1&"59%

Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio Mananghaya question the respondentCourt's decision promulgated on November 22, !!",#$%hich a&&irmed %ith modi&ication theagrarian court's decision promulgated anuary ", !!",#2$%hich ordered them and theother de&endants therein to, among others, restore possession o& the disputed landholding toprivate respondent, Eu&rocina (da) dela Cru*) +aid respondent court's decision isno% &inal and eecutory as to -lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo, the otherde&endants in the agrarian court and, also, the other petitioners in the respondent court,since they did not appeal the same)

+ince petitioners do not dispute the &indings o& &act o& the respondent Court, the same shallbe quoted verbatim and are as &ollo%s.

/0t appears &rom the records that uan Mendo*a, &ather o& herein de&endant-lympio Mendo*a, is the o%ner o& 1arm ots Nos) 34 and "4, 5loc6 2, Psd7893:8o& the 5ahay Pare Estate, 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, %ith an area o& 28,"""square meters and !,""" square meters, respectively) ;evoted to the productiono& palay, the lots %ere tenanted and cultivated by ulian dela Cru*, husband o&plainti&& Eu&rocina dela Cru*) ulian died on +eptember 2:, !

0n her complaint, Eu&rocina alleged that upon the death o& ulian, she succeededhim as bona fidetenant o& the sub=ect lots> that bet%een uly < to uly :, !93,-lympio Mendo*a, in conspiracy %ith the other de&endants, prevented herdaughter (ioleta and her %or6ers through &orce, intimidation, strategy and stealth,&rom entering and %or6ing on the sub=ect premises> and that until the &iling o& theinstant case, de&endants had re&used to vacate and surrender the lots, thusviolating her tenancy rights) Plainti&& there&ore prayed &or =udgment &or therecovery o& possession, and damages %ith a %rit o& preliminary mandatoryin=unction in the meantime)

;e&endants Reyes, Parayao, Aguinaldo and Mananghaya, duly elected and?orappointed barangay o&&icials o& 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, deniedinter&erence in the tenancy relationship eisting bet%een plainti&& and de&endantMendo*a, particularly in the cultivation o& the latter's &arm lots) Claiming that theyhave al%ays eercised &airness, equity, reason and impartiality in the discharge o&their o&&icial &unctions, they as6ed &or the dismissal o& the case and claimed moral
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn2


3/162

damages and attorney's &ees in the total amount o& P4:,""")"" @Ans%er %ithCounterclaim, Records, pp) 397:)

1or his part, de&endant Mendo*a raised abandonment, sublease and mortgage o&the &arm lots %ithout his consent and approval, and non7payment o& rentals,irrigation &ees and other taes due the government, as his de&enses) Be also

demanded actual and eemplary damages, as %ell as attorney's &ees @Ans%er, pp)


4/162

c the prayer &or moral damages, not having been su&&iciently proved, the same isdenied)

d -rdering de&endants =ointly and severally, to pay the costs o& suit)

Dhe a%ards herein provided should &irst be satis&ied &rom the deposits o& the

harvests ordered by the Court &rom %hich the planting and harvesting epenseshave been paid to de&endant -lympio Mendo*a> and i& said net deposits %ith theCourt or the %arehouses as ordered by the Court are insu&&icient, then the balanceshould be paid by de&endants, =ointly and severally)/#3$

;e&endants %ho are the petitioners in this case, in a Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari,present&or the consideration o& the Court.

/#D$he lone issue o& %hether or not they can be held liable, =ointly and severally,%ith the other de&endants, &or the harvests o& the litigated property, ot No) 34, orthe money equivalent thereo& starting &rom the principal crop years o&

!93 and every harvest time therea&ter until the possession and cultivation o& thea&orestated landholding are &inally surrendered to the private respondent)/#:$

0t is the position o& petitioners that they are not liable =ointly and severally %ith -lympioMendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo because the present petition involves ot No) 34, 5loc6 2,Psd7893:8 o& the 5ahay Pare Estate, 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga and not ot No) "4 o&the same estate, %hich lot %as purchased by petitioner Romeo Reyes &rom -lympioMendo*a's &ather, uan, and %hich he later donated to the 5arangay 5ahay Pare o& Candaba,Pampanga, &or the construction o& the 5ahay Pare 5arangay Bigh +chool)#4$As to theirsupposed participation in the dispossession o& private respondent &rom the disputed

landholding, petitioners present the +eptember 8", !9< Resolution o& 0nvestigating 1iscalesus M) Pamintuan, as approved by Pampanga Provincial 1iscal (illamor 0) ;i*on, in 0)+) No)9:


5/162

e &ind &or the private respondents)

0t is clear that petitioners are as6ing s to re7eamine all the evidence alreadypresented and evaluated by the trial court and re7evaluated again by the respondentappellate court) +aid evidence served as basis in arriving at the trial court and appellatecourt's &indings o& &act) e shall not analy*e such evidence all over again but insteadput finisto the &actual &indings in this case) +ettled is the rule that only questions o& la% maybe raised in a petition &or revie% on certiorariunder Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court#2$absentthe eceptions %hich do not obtain in the instant case)#8$

e agree %ith the appellate court in its ratiocination, %hich e adopt, on %hy it has todismiss the appeal) +aid the Court.

/0n her Complaint, plainti&&7appellee alleged that she Gis the tenant o& 1arm otsNos) 34 and "4, 5loc6 2, Psd7893:8 o& the 5ahay Pare Estate, 5ahay Pare,Candaba, Pampanga, %ith a total area o& 28,!4! square meters, more or less ' @Complaint, Records, vol) , p) ) Bo%ever, during (ioleta's testimony, sheclari&ied that actually only ot No) 34 containing an area o& 28,""" square meters

is the one involved in the dispute) ot No) "4, %hich contains an area o& !,"""square meters, is not included in this controversy @D)+)N), August ", !9!, p) :>May 9, !9!, p) 2) Dhis statement %as corroborated by plainti&&'s counsel, Atty)Arturo Rivera, %ho in&ormed the court that the !,""" square meter lot is sub=ecto& a pending case be&ore the MDC o& +ta) Ana, Pampanga @0bid), p) :) Dheinconsistency bet%een the averment o& the complaint and the testimony o& the%itness should not be ta6en against appellee not only because there %as nosho%ing that she intended to mislead de&endants and even the trial court on thesub=ect matter o& the suit) 0t %ould appear that ot No) "4 had been included inthe complaint since together %ith ot 34, it is o%ned by -limpio's &ather)

e also concur %ith the trial court's &inding on the participation o& the otherappellants in the dispossession o& appellee) Dhey not only 6ne% -limpio personally,some o& them %ere even as6ed by -limpio to help him cultivate the land, thuslending credence to the allegation that de&endant -limpio, together %ith his co7de&endants, prevented plainti&& and her %or6ers &rom entering the land through'strong arm methods)' @;ecision o& RDC, Records, vol) 00, p) :43)

1inally, %e rule that the trial court did not err %hen it &avorably considered thea&&idavits o& Eu&rocina and E&ren Decson @Annees /5/ and /C/ although the

a&&iants %ere not presented and sub=ected to cross7eamination) +ection 4 o& P);)No) !34 provides that the GRules o& Court shall not be applicable in agrarian caseseven in a suppletory character)H Dhe same provision states that '0n the hearing,investigation and determination o& any question or controversy, a&&idavits andcounter7a&&idavits may be allo%ed and are admissible in evidence)'
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn12http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn13http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn12http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30598#_ftn13


6/162

Moreover, in agrarian cases, the quantum o& evidence required is no more thansubstantial evidence) Dhis substantial evidence rule %as incorporated in section 9,P);) No) !34 %hich too6 e&&ect on une Rollo, p)


7/162

#8$Dhe case o& Medina v) Asistio, I)R) No) @2 hen the in&erence made ismani&estly mista6en, absurd or impossible @una v) inato6, @8 herethere is a grave abuse o& discretion @5uyco v) People, !: Phil) 3:8 #!::$> @3 hen the=udgment is based on a misapprehension o& &acts @Cru* v) +osing, 739 @4 hen the Court o& Appeals, in ma6ing its &indings, %ent beyond the issues o& thecase and the same is contrary to the admissions o& both appellant and appellee@Evangelista v) Alto +urety and 0nsurance Co), "8 Phil) 3" #!:9$> @


8/162

Claiming to be the la%&ul o%ner o& a lot located in +ta) 5arbara, 5aliuag, 5ulacan, pursuant toa &inal court verdict,#$ herein petitioner &iled, on 8 uly !!2, an action &or the recovery o&possession o& the property %ith the Regional Drial Court @LRDCF o& Malolos, 5ulacan, againstprivate respondents) Petitioner averred that private respondents %ere occupying a portion o&the ad=udicated lot %hich he %ould need &or his o%n personal use and that o& his &amily butthat because private respondents, despite repeated demands, had re&used to vacate the

premises, he %as constrained to initiate the case)

0n their ans%er, private respondents disputed petitionerHs cause o& action) Respondentspouses assert that the true o%ners o& the property in question, namely, ;on Ra&ael and;oa +alud Chico, %ere succeeded upon their death by their son ;el&in Chico> that privaterespondents had long been in la%&ul possession o& the sub=ect parcel o& land as tenants o& thedeceased spouses and their son to %hom rentals had been paid> and that, in any case,petitionerHs action had already prescribed)

-n 2 anuary !!3, the Malolos RDC, 5ranch 3, rendered its decision sustaining the

complaint and ordering private respondents to vacate the sub=ect lot and to surrender itspossession to petitioner)

Private respondents did not ta6e an appeal &rom the decision> instead, they initiated %ith theCourt o& Appeals a petition &or certiorari under Rule 4: o& the Rules o& Court to annul and setaside the RDC decision &or allegedly being void) Private respondents claimed that theirtenancy relationship %ith the original o%ner %as an agrarian dispute cogni*able eclusivelyby the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udication 5oard @L;ARA5F, pursuant to E)-) No)22! and No) 2!7A and R)A) No) 44: it thus held that the;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm, not the trial court a quo, had la%&ul =urisdiction over thecase) A motion &or a reconsideration o& the decision proved to be &utile)

0n the instant petition &or revie%, petitioner Pedro Chico asseverates that 7

) Dhe Bonorable Court o& Appeals #has$ erred in not giving petitioner an opportunity to

&ile his comment or ans%er to the petition be&ore rendering its decision thereon, thusdenying him procedural due process)

2) Dhe Bonorable court o& Appeals #has$ erred in not dismissing the petition as the properremedy is ordinary appeal and not a petition &or certiorari)

8) Dhe Bonorable Court o& Appeals #has$ erred in &inding that the dispute bet%een theparties is agrarian in nature)


9/162

Dhe Court &inds merit in the petition)

Dhe rule has al%ays been to the e&&ect that the =urisdiction o& a Court, as %ell as theconcomitant nature o& an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not bythe de&enses contained in the ans%er)#2$ 0& it %ere other%ise, it %ould not be too di&&icult tohave a case either thro%n out o& court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simplestratagem)

Dhe complaint &iled by petitioner be&ore the trial court is one &or recovery o& possession, also6no%n as accion publiciana,and it is this averment o& the complaint that has con&erred=urisdiction on that court) 0n order &or a tenancy relation to ta6e serious hold over thedispute, it %ould be essential to &irst establish all its indispensable elements, to %it. @ Dhatthe parties are the lando%ner and the tenant or agricultural lessee> @2 that the sub=ectmatter o& the relationship is an agricultural land> @8 that there is consent bet%een theparties to the relationship> @3 that the purpose o& the relationship is to bring aboutagricultural production> @: that there is personal cultivation on the part o& the tenant oragricultural lessee> and @4 that the harvest is shared bet%een the lando%ner and the tenantor agricultural lessee)#8$ 0t is not enough that these requisites are alleged> these requisitesmust be sho%n in order to divest the regular court o& its =urisdiction in proceedings la%&ullybegan be&ore it) Dhese conditions have not been met in the case at bar)

Dhe records o& the case %ould &ail to sho% any =uridical tie binding bet%een privaterespondents and petitioner or their predecessors7in7interest, let alone that %hich %ould socharacteri*e the relationship as an agrarian dispute) 0t %ould appear that the o%ner o& theland, ;on Ra&ael Chico, gave the property to petitioner Pedro Chico in !:3#3$ and, sincethen, the latter or his representative had ta6en over the land and had eercised acts o&

o%nership thereover)#:$ Dhere %as no evidence adduced that any tenancy agreement hadbeen concluded bet%een Pedro Chico and private respondent Martin Mananghaya) 0ndeed,the latter admitted that he only dealt %ith ;el&in Chico, the son o& the late ;on Ra&ael Chico)#4$ orse, the land sub=ect matter o& the controversy %as not sho%n to be an agriculturalland> to the contrary, the land %ould appear to be located %ithin a residential area, in5arangay +ta) 5arbara, 5aliuag, 5ulacan, ad=acent to the National Bigh%ay) -n the disputedparcel, a mere 8,94: square meters, %as the old residential house o& petitioner, as %ell as theportion occupied by private respondents consisting o& an area o& :"" square meters, and a&e% mango trees, numbering about seven or eight)# proo& must be adduced) Dhis burdenprivate respondents have &ailed to discharge be&ore the trial court> i& private respondentshave &elt other%ise, the remedy should have been a timely appeal) Certainly, Rule 4: o& theRules o& Court cannot be a substitute &or lost appeal)


10/162

BERE1-RE, the instant petition is IRANDE;> the assailed decision o& the Court o& Appealso& 4 une !!: and Resolution o& "4 November !!: are hereby +ED A+0;E and thequestioned decision o& the Regional Drial Court o& Malolos, 5ulacan, in Civil Case No) 39 +antos vs.CA, 23 +CRA 42)

#8$ Cuao vs.CA, 28< +CRA 22)

#3$ Rollo, p) 33)

#:$0bid), pp) 8:784)

#4$0bid), p) 84, see 5erenguer, r) vs.CA, 43 +CRA 38)

#


11/162

Drial and appellate courts determine the eistence @or noneistence o& a tenancy relationshipon the basis o& the evidence presented by the parties) Certi&ications o& administrativeagencies and o&&icers declaring the eistence o& a tenancy relation are merely provisional)Dhey are persuasive but not binding on courts, %hich must ma6e their o%n &indings)

The Case

Dhis principle is stressed by this Court as it rules on the instant petition &or revie% oncertiorari under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court assailing the 1ebruary 24, !!2 ;ecision#$o&Respondent Court o& Appeals#2$in CA I)R) C( No) 2!3:87:3, the dispositive portion o& %hichreads.#8$

8BERE1-RE, the =udgment appealed &rom is set aside and another one enteredas &ollo%s.

0n Civil Case No)

@ Plainti&& acarias -arde is ordered reinstated as la%&ul tenant7tiller o& ot < o& theAgrarian Re&orm Pro=ect &or 5arangay Iotob, Camalig, Albay and restored immediately to thepossession thereo&)

@2 ;e&endants Rogelio Molar and (ilma Molar are ordered to pay damages to plainti&&acarias -arde in the sum o& P:,9:")"")

Dhe decision o& the court a quo dismissing the complaint o& Presentacion Molar in Civil CaseNo)


12/162

Dhe &ollo%ing &acts are admitted by the parties.

) Dheir identity>

2) Dhat the original tenant7tiller o& the land %as 1rancisco Molar, &ather o& the plainti&&Presentacion Molar, and &ather7in7la% o& the other plainti&& acarias -arde>

8) Dhat the eldest and only son o& 1rancisco Molar is 5asilio Molar>

3) Dhat de&endant Rogelio Molar is the grandson o& 1rancisco Molar, the &ormer being the sono& 5asilio Molar>

:) Dhat de&endant spouses il&redo Iuerrero and ourdes Iuerrero sold the herein involved

parcels o& land to the de&endant spouses Rogelio Molar and (ilma Molar sometime in -ctober!9


13/162

Magnaye alleged that as &ar as the property being tilled by acarias is concerned,in&ormation %as given by Pedro Cervantes @p) !) ;uring the survey, acarias-arde %as not around) acarias admitted that %hen the survey %as made, he %asnot present)

Another %itness presented %as Iregorio Medina) Be %as the President o& the

+amahang Nayon o& Iotob in !


14/162

-n the other hand, de&endants in both cases claim that plainti&&s PresentacionMolar and acarias -arde are not tenant7tillers o& the land in question)

5asilio Molar, a %itness &or the de&endants testi&ied that Atty) il&redo Iuerreroo%ns only one parcel o& land in Iotob and this %as previously &armed by his &ather

1rancisco Molar) A&ter 1rancisco MolarHs death, the land %as tilled by %itness 5asilioMolar) Presentacion Molar and acarias -arde are only helpers) 1rom the share o&the tenant7tiller 1rancisco Molar, Presentacion and acarias get their share)

Another %itness %as Ernesto Nares) Be %as one o& the buyers o& the propertytogether %ith Rogelio Molar)

-n cross7eamination he stated that acarias -arde and Presentacion Molar arenot tillers o& any land, %hether coconut or riceland @p) 4, tsn, Nov) 8, !9!)

Rogelio Molar and de&endant il&redo Iuerrero li6e%ise too6 the %itness stand buttheir testimony centered on the denials that Presentacion Molar and acarias-arde are tenants o& the land)F

Dhe trial court held that Petitioners Molar and -arde %ere not la%&ul tenants o& privaterespondents) As noted above, public respondent a&&irmed the trial courtHs ruling in regard toPetitioner Molar, but reversed it %ith respect to Petitioner -arde) 0t ordered the reinstatemento& -arde as a tenant and a%arded him damages in the sum o& P:,9:")"")

5e&ore us, Petitioner Molar prays that she be declared as a la%&ul tenant, and Petitioner-arde as6s that the damages a%arded to him be increased &rom P:,9:")"" to P8,9:")"")Private respondents do not question the ;ecision o& public respondent)

Dhe 0ssues

Petitioners list the &ollo%ing assignment o& errors in their petition#:$and memorandum.#4$

80) Dhe appellate court erred in not giving credence and probative value to theo&&icial and public documents sho%ing Presentacion Molar as the registered tenant7

tiller o& the lot in question)

00) Dhe appellate court erred in notconsidering @sic substantial &acts, thetestimonial evidence and admissions that greatly a&&ected the result o& this case)

000) Dhe appellate court erred in not applying the provsions @sic o& the Ne%CARP#


15/162

tenant7tiller, Presentacion Molar)

0() Dhe appellate court erred in not computing correctly the total share thatacarias -arde %as deprived o& since -ctober !9< to the present)

() Dhe appellate court erred in not a%arding actual damages, attorneyHs &ees,

litigation epenses, moral and eemplary damages to plainti&&s)F

Do avoid needless repetition, the Court believes that the issues may be condensed into three.

) 0s Petitioner Molar a la%&ul tenantO

2) 0s the a%ard to Petitioner -arde o& P:,9:" as his la%&ul share in the harvests o& his tilledland &rom -ctober !9< to May !! correctO

8) Are petitioners entitled to moral and eemplary damages as %ell as attorneyHs &ees andlitigation epensesO

The Courts Ruli!

The a""eal has o #erit.

First Issue: Is $etitioer %olar a

a%&ul Denant7DillerO

Dhe essential requisites o& a tenancy relationship are the &ollo%ing. @ the parties are thelando%ner and the tenant> @2 the sub=ect is agricultural land> @8 there is consent> @3 thepurpose is agricultural production> @: there is personal cultivation> and @4 there is sharingo& harvests) All these must concur to establish the =uridical relationship o& tenancy)#9$

Mar6edly absent in the case o& Petitioner Molar is the element o& LpersonalF cultivation) 5oththe trial court and the Court o& Appeals &ound that Molar hersel& did not actually cultivate theland, nor did her immediate &amily or &arm household) 0nstead, she hired other people to doall phases o& &arm %or6)#!$Even her co7petitioner testi&ied that she did not actually till the

land and that she merely paid laborers to per&orm such tas6)#"$Dhus, public respondentaptly held.#$

8Dhe trial court noted that Presentacion made inconsistent ans%ers %hen as6ed%hen she began tilling the land, be&ore she &inally declared that she started tillingthe property %ay bac6 in !4: @tsn, uly , !9!) Bo%ever, the element o&personal cultivation is essential &or an agricultural leasehold> that is, that there


16/162

should be personal cultivation by the tenant or by his immediate &arm householdor members o& the &amily o& the lessee or other persons %ho are dependent uponhim &or support or %ho usually help him in his activities @Evangelista vs) CA, :9+CRA 3) Dhe la% is eplicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate &amily to%or6 the land @5oni&acio vs) ;i*on, she o%ns a small store @tsn, uly , !9!, pp)47!)

e agree %ith the trial court that e cannot have a case %here a landlord isdivested o& his landholding and somebody else is installed to become a ne%landlord)F @nderscoring supplied)

e stress that both the respondent appellate court and the trial court &ound that PetitionerMolar %as not a tenant o& Private Respondent il&redo Iuerrero) Petitioners are in e&&ectas6ing this Court to assess the evidentiary basis o& the &oregoing &actual conclusion) Dhis %ecannot do) 0n 1uentes vs) Court o& Appeals,#2$%e eplained that only questions o& la% could

be raised in a petition &or revie% on certiorari under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court.8urisprudence teaches us that G@as a rule, the =urisdiction o& this Court in casesbrought to it &rom the Court o& Appeals is limited to the revie% and revisiono& errors o& la% allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its &indings o& &actare deemed conclusive) As such this Court is not duty7bound to analy*e and %eighall over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings belo%) Dhis rule,ho%ever, is not %ithout eceptions)H#8$Dhe &indings o& &act o& the Court o&Appeals, %hich are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may admit o& revie% bythis Court.#3$

@ %hen the &actual &indings o& the Court o& Appeals and the trial court arecontradictory>

@2 %hen the &indings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or con=ectures>


17/162

@8 %hen the in&erence made by the Court o& Appeals &rom its &indings o& &act ismani&estly mista6en, absurd, or impossible>

@3 %hen there is grave abuse o& discretion in the appreciation o& &acts>

@: %hen the appellate court, in ma6ing its &indings, goes beyond the issues o& the

case, and such &indings are contrary to the admissions o& both appellant and appellee>

@4 %hen the =udgment o& the Court o& Appeals is premised on a misapprehension o&&acts>

@

@9 %hen the &indings o& &act are themselves con&licting>

@! %hen the &indings o& &act are conclusions %ithout citation o& the speci&ic evidence on%hich they are based> and

@" %hen the &indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals are premised on the absence o&evidence but such &indings are contradicted by the evidence on record)F

hether Petitioner Molar %as a tenant7tiller is a question o& &act) Molar has not sho%n thather case &alls under any o& the recogni*ed eceptions to the ironclad rule that only questionso& la% may be raised be&ore this Court in a petition &or revie% under Rule 3: o& the Rules o&Court)#:$

0n any event, Petitioner Molar submitted the &ollo%ing documentary ehibits to support herclaim that she %as a tenant.

8Ehibit A +ummary ist o& Rice and Corn ands

A7 +ignature o& de&endant Rogelio Molar

A72 +ignature o& the 5arangay Captain

A78 +ignature o& the President, +amahang Nayon

5 Addendum 0nde og +heet

57 ot < 9

C Police 5lotter re. complaint o& plainti&&s7appellants


18/162

C7 +ignature o& ose +egovia, Deam eader 0, ;AR

; Parcellary Map#p$ing +heet

E etter o& Atty) ladoc o& ;AR to the +tation Commander, Camalig,

Albay

I ;AR letter to parties re. Mediation Con&erence)F

+he adds that she Lhas been a registered tenant7tiller o& ot since !


19/162

courts) Dhus, in Puertollano, et al) v) Bon) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, et al), thisCourt held that.

G1rom the &oregoing provisions o& the la% #+ection 2 P);) No) 84 and +ection 2 P);) No)

"89$, it is clear that the trial court cannot ta6e cogni*ance o& any e=ectment case or anyother case designed to harass or remove a tenant in an agricultural land primarily devoted torice and corn %ithout &irst re&erring the same to the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm or hisauthori*ed representative in the locality &or a preliminary determination o& the relationshipbet%een the contending parties) 0& said o&&icer &inds that the case is proper &or determinationby the court it shall so certi&y and thence said court may assume =urisdiction over the disputeor controversy) +uch preliminary determination o& the relationship ho%ever, is not bindingupon the court) +aid court may a&ter due hearing con&irm, reverse or modi&y said preliminarydetermination as the evidence and substantial merit o& the case may %arrant) @EmphasissuppliedF

1urthermore, these documents %ere based merely on bare e parte allegations o& di&&erentpersons)#2$Even %orse, MolarHs o%n %itness, ose Neo, Lan employee o& ;AR,F testi&ied thatLhe did not in any %ay participate in the preparation o& the document presented inevidence)F#22$

0n ;on Pepe Benson Enterprises, cited by petitioners, the conclusion o& this Court on theeistence o& a tenancy relationship %as based on the evidence presented be&ore the trialcourt and not on the certi&ications issued by the ;AR> said certi&ications merely Lrea&&irm#ed$Fand Lstrengthen#ed$F the conclusion o& the court) 0n other %ords, the cited case is

inapplicable to the present controversy because Petitioner Molar has not convinced us thatshe %as a tenant in the &irst place)

Petitioner Molar &urther argues that Respondent Court &ailed to apply the &ollo%ing la%s.

8) +ection 4, RA 44:


20/162

Dhe &oregoing provisions enumerate the bene&its available to a tenant) Presentation Molarcannot claim such bene&its because, precisely, she &ailed to prove that she %as a tenant at all)

+econd 0ssue. +hare o& Petitioner -arde &rom Barvests

Petitioner -arde contends that Respondent Court erred in computing the a%ard due him) Beclaims it should be P8,9:")"", not P:,9"")"", representing Lthe loss o&


21/162

land %ithout any =usti&iable cause)F Dhey leave to the sound discretion o& this Court theirclaim &or eemplary or corrective damages)#88$

Respondent Court denied the claims &or Lmoral and eemplary damages and attorneyHs &ees &or lac6 o& legal and?or &actual basis)F#83$e &ind no error in such ruling)

Dhe a%ard o& attorneyHs &ees depends upon the circumstances o& each case and lies %ithin thediscretion o& the court) e scoured the records and, li6e the Court o& Appeals, &ound no legal,&actual or equitable =usti&ication &or the a%ard o& attorneyHs &ees)

i6e%ise, %e deny the claim &or moral and eemplary damages) Aside &rom the na6edallegations o& physical and emotional su&&erings, petitioners &ailed to substantiate their claims)i6e%ise, eemplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, butto serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to socially deleterious actions) 0nthis case, no harm&ul act can be attributed to the private respondents %hich %arrants thea%ard o& eemplary damages)

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DE&IED) Dhe assailed DECISIO& is 'FFIR%ED intoto) Costs against petitioners)SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Romero, #elo, and Francisco, JJ., concur)

#$Rollo, pp) !724)

#2$Dhirteenth ;ivision composed o& ) Minerva P) Ion*aga7Reyes, ponente> and ) Arturo 5)5uena and Quirino ;) Abad +antos, r), concurring)

#8$Rollo, pp) 2:724)

#3$Drial courtHs decision, pp) 78> original records o& Civil Case No)

#:$Rollo, pp) 278)

#4$0bid), pp) 9979!)

#


22/162

#!$;e Iu*man vs) +antos, 4 +CRA Rollo, p) 23)

#$0bid), pp) 47 Rollo, pp) 2372:)

#2$I)R) No) "!93!, pp) :79, 1ebruary 24, !! citingMorales vs) Court o& Appeals, !< +CRA 8!, May 28, !!, and Navarra vs) Court o&Appeals, 2"3 +CRA 9:", ;ecember


23/162

#28$L+ection 4) Retention imits) 77

pon the e&&ectivity o& this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or trans&ero& possession o& private lands eecuted by the original lando%ner in violation o& this Act shallbe null and void> Provided, ho%ever, Dhat those eecuted prior to this Act shall be valid only

%hen registered %ith the Registrar o& ;eeds %ithin a period o& three @8 months a&ter thee&&ectivity o& this Act) Dherea&ter, all Registers o& ;eeds shall in&orm the ;AR %ithin thirty@8" days o& any transaction involving agricultural lands in ecess o& &ive @: hectares)F

#23$L+ection "4) +ale o& agricultural land> a&&idavit) 77 No voluntary deed or instrumentpurporting to be a subdivision, mortgage, lease, sale or any other mode o& encumbrance orconveyance o& private agricultural land principally devoted to rice or corn or any portionthereo& shall be registered unless accompanied by an a&&idavit o& the vendor or eecutorstating that the land involved is not tenanted, or i& tenanted, the same is not primarilydevoted to the production o& rice and?or corn)

0& only a portion o& the land is primarily devoted to the production or rice and?or corn, andsuch area so devoted is tenanted, no such deed or instrument shall be registered unlessaccompanied by an a&&idavit stating the area @si*e o& the portion %hich is tenanted andprimarily devoted to rice and?or corn, and stating &urther that the deed or instrument coversonly the untenanted portion or that %hich is not primarily devoted to the production o& riceand?or corn) A memorandum o& said a&&idavit shall be annotated on the certi&icate o& title) DheRegister o& ;eeds shall cause a copy o& the registered deed or instrument, together %ith thea&&idavit, to be &urnished the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm Regional -&&ice %here the land islocated) Dhe a&&idavit provided in this section shall not be required in the case o& a tenant7

&armer %ho deals %ith his Certi&icate o& and Drans&er or Emancipation Patent in accordance%ith la%)F

#2:$L+ection ") Agricultural easehold Relation Not Etinguished by Epiration o& Period,etc) 77 Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be etinguished by mereepiration o& the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or trans&ero& the legal possession o& the landholding) 0n case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates ortrans&ers the legal possession o& the landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall besubrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)F

#24$ Dhe epiration o& the period o& the contract as &ied by the parties, or o& the sale,alienation or trans&er o& legal possession o& the land does not o& itsel& etinguish therelationship) 0n the latter case, the purchaser or trans&eree shall assume the rights andobligations o& the &ormer landholder in relation to the tenant) 0n case o& death o& thelandholder, his heir or heirs shall li6e%ise assume his rights and obligations)H @0talicssupplied)F


24/162

#2 Re&ractories Corporation vs) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, Choa De6 Bee vs) Philippine Publishing Co), 83 Phil) 33 Capco vs) Macasaet,9! +CRA :4> Malon*o vs) Ialang, "! Phil) 4 and Medelo vs) Iorospe, :! +CRA 239)

#8$CA ;ecision, p) Rollo, p) 2:)

#82$Dhis particular provision is alleged to be applicable to their case.

LArt) 22"9) 0n the absence o& stipulation, attorneyHs &ees and epenses o& litigation, otherthan =udicial costs, cannot be recovered, ecept.


25/162

@2 hen the de&endantHs act or omission has compelled the plainti&& to litigate %ith thirdpersons or to incur epenses to protect his interest>

)F

#88$Petition, pp) 278> Rollo, pp) 873)

#83$CA ;ecision, p) Rollo, p) 2:)

-va'el#sta vs. Court of Appeals 15( SCRA 41SourceUR!httpelibrary.u(iiary.+ov.phtheboo/shelfsho7(osfrie$(ly1292"%

+EC-N; ;0(0+0-N

# I)R) No) 78


26/162

a&oresaid landholding, until he %as illegally e=ected &rom the same on : April !4:, &orhaving in&ormed +anche* o& his desire to &i the amount o& the rental in accordance %ithRepublic Act No) 8933 as amended, other%ise 6no%n as the and Re&orm Code#$)

Dhe private respondents denied the alleged &orcible eviction o& the petitioner &rom thelandholding) Dhey claimed that petitioner occupied the land in question as a lessee under a

contract o& civil lease, and not as an agricultural lessee under Republic Act No) 8933, asamended> and that he @petitioner voluntarily surrendered the land to them @privaterespondents sometime in March, !4:#2$)

Dhe de&ense o& the private respondents %as anchored on three @8 %ritten contracts eecutedby +anche* and the petitioner, one entitled /Sasulatang -ption/#8$and the other t%o,/Sasulatan ng 5u%isan/#3$)

Dhe contract entitled /Sasulatang -ption/, eecuted on 3 une !:4, contained the &ollo%ingterms and conditions.

"%*+%%N- $OION$

#%%#%N N- %/%0

Na a1ong si RO*%RIO #. *%NC/&2, ilipino, ma3 sapat na gulang, 1asal 1a3 -. Juan J.

*anche at nananahanan sa Calumpit, !ulacan, a3

i n a g t i t i b a 30

Na a1o ang tuna3 at tanging ma3ari ng isang su1at na lupa ga3a ng nasasaad sa $ransfer

Certificate of itle No. '4567$ ng $Registr3 of eeds for the rovince of !ulacan$, at lalongma1i1ilala ga3a ng mga sumusunod0

$8 8 8 8 8$

Na sa lupang nabanggit a3 lima (9) he1tarea a3 nasa bu:isan sa 1asalu1u3an 1a3 %ntonio

&vangelista, ilipino, ma3 sapat na gulang, binata at nananahanan sa ugam, #alolos,

!ulacan na matatapos sa taong anihan ;,777.77 na ibibiga3 sa a1in ng nasabing %ntonio

&vangelista (at ang pagtanggap ng nasabing halaga a3 patutuna3an ng recibo) dito a3

binibig3an 1o si3a ng pangunang pag1a1ataon (option) sa muling pagpapabu:is ng nasabingpang1at na lupa. %ng panibagong 1asunduan sa bu:isan a3 gaga:in namin sa bu:an ng

&nero, ;,777.77 a3 bilang utang sa panibagong bu:isan, datapu:a?t hanggang

hindi umiiral ang panibagong bu:isan, ang nasabing halaga a3 ituturing na pautang at

mag1a1aroon ng patubo na ;>@.


27/162

Na a1ong si %ntonio &vangelista, ang nababanggit sa itaas, a3 sanga3on sa lahat ng mga

mababasa sa itaas.

*a 1atuna3an a3 lumagda 1ami sa ibaba nito dito sa Calumpit, !ulacan, nga3ong i1a ;A ng

/un3o, ;


28/162

nang #a$at taon nang !amumu$isan.

3. -AGA/ Ang laga nang Namumu$isan a %",00.00 na $alang !atu#o, na ito nananagutan

ung hini maatu!a ang Namumu$isan sa aniang mga tungulin sa ilalim nang asunuangito, at ang hini !agaasaoli nang laga na ito, a hini magiging ahilan nang hini !aga

ta!os nang #u$isan;

2. 457A/ Tungulin nang Namumu$isan na sia!in at alagaang ma#uti ang lu!ang #inu#u

$isan at isaoli sa Nag!a!a#u$is !agata!os nang #u$isan, at ii$anang lahat ang m&8o'ang

ilaga nia at ito $ala siang a'a!atang humingi o sumingil nang ano man.

. %ATUBIG AT BUWIS SA %AAA-AAN/ Ang !atu#ig a #a#aa'an nang Namumu$isan ang

ala$a sa tatlong #ahagi (":3) at ang iatlo (1:3) a ang Nag!a!a#u$is.

6. %AGSASAA/ Ang !amumu$isang ito a hini a!at na i!aahulugan nang sino mang magsaa

sa lu!a sa !anahon nang !amumu$isan a naging asama nang Nag!a!a#u$is, aa, !aga

ta!os nang #u$isan, ang !os&ion a isasaoli nang Namumu$isan sa Nag!a!a#u$is at sia osino man a $alang ano mang !aghaha#ol sa !agsasaa;


29/162

) ;eclaring the plainti&& to be the agricultural lessee on the land in question%ith an area o& : hectares mmore or less, situated at ugam, Malolos,5ulacan>

2) -rdering the de&endant 1elipe ;omingo to vacate said landholding andsurrender the possession thereo& to the plainti&&>

8) -rdering de&endants u* +) Castaneda and 5enedicto +anche* to reinstatethe plainti&& to said landholding and to return to the plainti&& the sum o&P8,:"")"">

3) ;ismissing the other claims and counterclaims o& the parties)

No pronouncement as to costs/#!$)

Dhe private respondents appealed the CAR =udgment to the Court o& Appeals %hich, as earlier

stated, reversed the decision o& the trial court, on the &ollo%ing grounds.8) Dhat %hen the appellee, Antonio Evangelista &irst too6 possession o& theproperty in !:3, it %as by virtue o& a lease contract %hich he admitted %as givento him by the late Rosario Mendo*a, but that he lost the same @pp) :7


30/162

nang Namumu:isan sa Nagpapabu:is at si3a o sino man a3 :alang ano mang

paghahabol sa pagsasa1a=

/8) Dhat herein appellee Antonio Evangelista voluntarily agreed to these t%o

conditions imposed by the late Rosario Mendo*a, as sho%n by the &ollo%ing portiono& the said %ritten agreement 7

$Na a1ong si %ntonio &vangelista, ang Namumu:isan sa itaas na

nabanggit, a3 sanga3on sa lahat nang mababasa sa itaas at 1atuna3an

linagdaan namin ito sa Calumpit, !ulacan, nga3ong i1a';E ng ebrero,

; and %ere%orded in Dagalog the dialect prevailing in 5ulacan province, and is there&oreclearly understood by the appellee Antonio Evangelista>

/:) Dhat even prior to !:3 %hen appellee &irst too6 possession o& the landholdingin question, the same has been previously leased to one Macario ;omingo,%aybac6 in !3:, as disclosed by Eh) 475, %hich is an annotation at the bac6 o&the title o& the questioned property, and such lease agreement %as &inallycancelled only in !:3, Eh) 47C, all o& %hich are &ound in Ehibit 47A, at the lapseo& %hich the appellee herein too6 over &rom said Macario ;omingo, and all these

are con&irmed by the latter %ho declared that he %as the lessee o& the same land&rom !347!:3> that it epired in March, !:3, and the appellee too6 over &romhim in April, !:3> that he also pays a rental o& !" cavans li6e the appellee,irrespective o& the harvest o& the land> that the other lessee be&ore him %ere 7ose Albania, rbano ope* and Pablo Caluag @tsn) pp)

/4) Dhat the appellee's original status, there&ore in !:3 %as that o& a lessee,isalso con&irmed by his o%n Ehibit ;, captioned /Patalastas/, the pertinent parts o&%hich read 7

C-N;0+0-N +A PARD0BAN NI AN0.!u:isan ng


31/162

all o& %hich reveal that the herein appellee started %or6ing &or the &irst time in!:3 as a lessee, and not as tenant, &urthermore his very o%n %itness, NicolasMaclang, admitted that herein appellee used to hire many plo%ers, harro%ers andplanters and also &arm laborers, %ho are paid by him @tsn, pp) 4"742, +ept) 24,

!4!> that he himsel& helped the appellee %or6ed on the land &or 8 years @tsn), p):8, id

L


32/162

/Consonant to the &oregoing, it is the considered opinion o& this Court that theherein appellee Antonio Evangelista, had not %or6ed personally or could @not have%or6ed on the landholding in question by himsel&, and %ith the aid o& the memberso& his immediate &arm household, consequently he could not there&ore beconsidered either as a share tenant, or a lease7hold tenant, contemplated by

Republic Act !!, as amended, or as an agricultural lessee, as de&ined byRepublic Act 8933, as amended, also 6no%n as the and Re&orm Code, %ho isentitled to a security o& tenure, as provided therein, under and pursuant to thequestioned lease agreements, &or these covenants clearly &all under the provisionso& the Ne% Civil Code, %hereby one o& the parties, binds himsel& to give to anotherthe en=oyment or use o& his property &or a price certain, and &or a de&inite periodspeci&ied therein) @Art) 438, Ne% Civil Code#"$/)

Bence, the petitioner's present recourse to this Court)

Dhe only issue in this case is %hether or not petitioner is an agricultural lessee under Rep) ActNo) 8933, and there&ore entitled to security o& tenure over the landholding, in question, or amere civil la% lessee, %ho does not en=oy security o& tenure in the sense that he may bee=ected &rom the landholding upon the epiration o& the term provided in the contract o&lease)

A share tenant @under Rep) Act No) !! or an agricultural lessee @under Rep) Act No) 8933is entitled to security o& tenure over the landholding he %or6s at) Not even the epiration o&any term or period &ied in the leasehold contract, in the case o& an agricultural lessee, %illcause the lessee's e=ectment &rom the land) -n the other hand, a civil lessee, under a

contract o& civil lease#$, does not en=oy security o& tenure over the land ob=ect o& thecontract) A civil lessee can be e=ected &rom the land a&ter the epiration o& the term provided&or in the contract)

Dhe &inding o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals that the petitioner %as not a bona fidetenant7&armer on the land in question, %hich are based on the evidence on record, is &inal andconclusive#2$) Dhe salient characteristic %hich %ould ma6e the relationship bet%een thepetitioner and +anche* one o& agricultural leasehold, and %hich is personal cultivation by thepetitioner and the immediate members o& his &arm household, is absent in the case at bar) Ascited in the decision o& the respondent court, petitioner's o%n %itness, Nicolas Maclang,admitted that petitioner used to hire many plo%ers, harro%ers and planters as %ell as &armlaborers, %ho %ere paid by him, and that he himsel& @Maclang helped the appellee %or6 onthe land &or 8 years) Even the decision o& the trial court sho%ed that petitioner did notpersonally cultivate the land in question) 0t held that.

/Nicolas Maclang declared that he sa% plainti&& @Evangelista %or6 on the land inqeustion &rom !42 to !4:> > that he (#aclang) helped the plaintiff :or1 theland in Buestion b3 plo:ing and harro:ing the same for E 3earsunder


33/162

the su3uansystem> that the plainti&& used his 2 carabaos and o%n &armimplements in the cultivation o& the land in question and that the plaintiff hadother companions in plo:ing and harro:ing the landholdingunder the suyuansystem @tsn, hearing o& +eptember 24, !4!, pp) 3 the decision appealed &rom is A110RME;) Costsagainst the petitioner)

SO ORDERED.

ap, (Chairman), #elencio'/errera, aras,and *armiento, JJ.,concur)

Penned by ustice Emilio A) Iancayco, %ith the concurrence o& ustices Ruperto I) Martinand ourdes P) +an ;iego)

Penned by udge ose M) +antos)


34/162

#$;ecision o& the Court o& Appeals, pp) 72

#2$0bid p) 2

#8$Ehibits C and C7

#3$Ehibits A, A7 and A72 and 5 and 57

#:$;ecision o& the Court o& Agrarian Relations, p) :

#4$Ehibits A, A7 and A72

#


35/162

DB0R; ;0(0+0-N

# I)R) No) 998, -ctober 28, !!2 $

+P-+E+ D0D+ ) EN;AKA AN; IEN;A DR0N0;A;> +P-+E+ R0C- ) EN;AKA AN;NANEDDE AQ0N-> AN; +P-+E+ -+EPB0NE ) EN;AKA AN; EAN;R- 5ANDI,PED0D0-NER+, (+) C-RD -1 APPEA+ AN; PE;R- 10;E0, RE+P-N;END+)

; E C 0 + 0 - N

RO%ERO, J.:

Assailed in this petition &or revie% on certiorariis the decision o& the Court o& Appeals in CA7I)R) No) :


36/162

;ue to petitionersH persistent demand &or private respondent to vacate the land, privaterespondent &iled in April !9: a complaint#"$%ith the Regional Drial Court o& Danauan,5atangas praying that he be declared the agricultural tenant o& petitioners)

A&ter trial, the trial court decided in &avor o& petitioners by holding that private respondent isnot an agricultural lessee o& the land no% o%ned by petitioners) Dhe dispositive portion o& theRDC decision reads.

/BERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered dismissing plainti&&'s complaint to bedeclared a tenant o& the landholding consisting o& 2",2"" square meters, located at+an Pioquinto, Malvar, 5atangas, and o%ned by the de&endants> ordering Pedro1ideli to vacate the landholding and deliver possession thereo& to the de&endants>and ordering the amount o& P9,""")"" deposited under Account No) 2!3""2!924Civil Case No) D738" to be %ithdra%n and delivered to the de&endants) Nopronouncement as to costs)/

-n appeal, the Court o& Appeals reversed the RDC decision and declared private respondent

to be the agricultural lessee o& the sub=ect landholding) Bence, this petition %herein privaterespondentHs status as an agricultural lessee and his security o& tenure as such are beingdisputed by petitioners)

Petitioners impugn the Court o& AppealsH declaration that private respondent is an agriculturallessee o& the sub=ect landholding contending that %hen the original lando%ners, the +pouses+an ;iego, entered into a lease contract %ith Regino Cassanova, the agricultural leaseholdrelationship bet%een the +pouses +an ;iego and private respondent, the eistence o& %hichpetitioners do not dispute, %as thereby terminated) Petitioners argue that a lando%nercannot have a civil la% lease contract %ith one person and at the same time have anagricultural leasehold agreement %ith another over the same land) 0t is &urther argued that

because private respondent consented to the lease contract bet%een the +pouses +an ;iegoand Cassanova, signing as he did the lease agreement and the rene%al contract as %itnessthereo&, private respondent has %aived his rights as an agricultural lessee)

Dhese contentions are %ithout merit)

R)A) No) 8933 @!48, as amended by R)A) No) 498! @!


37/162

/+ec)") Agricultural easehold Relation Not Etinguished by Epiration o& Period, etc) 7Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be etinguished bymere epiration o& the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale,alienation or trans&er o& the legal possession o& the landholding) 0n case theagricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the legal possession o& the

landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogated to the rightsand substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)/

Bence, transactions involving the agricultural land over %hich an agricultural leaseholdsubsists resulting in change o& o%nership, e)g), sale, or trans&er o& legal possession, such aslease, %ill not terminate the rights o& the agricultural lessee %ho is given protection by thela% by ma6ing such rights en&orceable against the trans&eree or the lando%ner's successor ininterest)#3$

0llustrative o& the legal principles outlined above is Catorce v) Court o& Appeals#:$ %here theperson holding a mortgage over the &arm land sub=ect o& an agricultural leasehold too6

possession thereo& pursuant to the mortgage and ousted the agricultural lessee) poncomplaint &or reinstatement &iled by the agricultural lessee, the then Court o& AgrarianRelations ordered the mortgagee to deliver possession over the land to the agricultural lesseebut this decision %as reversed by the Court o& Appeals) 0n reversing the Court o& AppealsH=udgment and reinstating the Agrarian Court's decision, the Court, through ustice Melencio7Berrera, noted, among other considerations, that /tenants are guaranteed security o& tenure,meaning, the continued en=oyment and possession o& their landholding ecept %hen theirdispossession had been authori*ed by virtue o& a &inal and eecutory =udgment, %hich is notso in the case at bar)/#4$0mplicit in the decision is the recognition that the trans&er o&possession to the mortgagee did not terminate the agricultural leasehold nor pre=udice the

security o& tenure o& the agricultural lessee)

Closer to, although not identical %ith the &actual setting o& the case at baris Novesteras v) Court o& Appeals)#


38/162

respondent denominated as a contract o& civil lease %as held by the Court to be in &act anagricultural leasehold agreement)

Again, in Coconut Cooperative Mar6eting Association, 0nc) @C-C-MA v) Court o& Appeals,#9$it %as held that the agricultural leasehold is preserved, not%ithstanding the trans&er o&the legal possession o& the sub=ect landholding, %ith the, trans&eree, C-C-MA in that case,being accountable to the agricultural lessees &or their rights) Dhe Court, through usticePadilla, summari*ed the rule as &ollo%s.

/Dhere is also no question that, in this case, there %as a trans&er o& the legalpossession o& the land &rom one landholder to another @1ule to petitionerC-C-MA) 0n connection there%ith, Republic Act 8933, +ec) " states.

'+EC) ") Agricultural easehold Relation Not Etinguished by Epiration o& Period, etc) 7 Dheagricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be etinguished by mere epiration o&the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or trans&er o& the legalpossession o& the landholding) 0n case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the

legal possession o& the landholdings, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogatedto the rights and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)'

1urther, in several cases, this Court sustained the preservation o& the landholder7tenantrelationship, in cases o& trans&er o& legal possession.

in case o& trans&er or in case o& lease, as in the instant case, the tenancyrelationship bet%een the lando%ner and his tenant should be preserved in order toinsure the %ell7being o& the tenant or protect him &rom being un=ustly dispossessedby the trans&eree or purchaser o& the land> in other %ords, the purpose o& the la%in question is to maintain the tenants in the peace&ul possession and cultivation o&the land or a&&ord them protection against un=usti&ied dismissal &rom their

holdings)H @Primero v) CAR,) " Phil) 4

'0t is our considered =udgment, since the return by the lessee o& the leasedproperty to the lessor upon the epiration o& the contract involves also a trans&ero& legal possession, and ta6ing into account the mani&est intent o& the la%ma6ingbody in amending the la%, i)e), to provide the tenant %ith security o& tenure in allcases o& trans&er o& legal possession, that the instant case &alls %ithin and isgoverned by the provisions o& +ection ! o& Republic Act !!, as amended byRepublic Act 2248)' @oya v) Pare=a, "4 Phil) 43:)

' that the tenant may proceed against the trans&eree o& the land to en&orceobligation incurred by the &ormer landholder in relation to said land, &or the reasonthat such obligation ) ) ) &alls upon the assignee or trans&eree o& the landH pursuantto +ec) ! abovementioned) +ince respondents are in turn &ree to proceed againstthe &ormer landholder &or reimbursement, it is not iniquitous to hold themresponsible to the tenant &or said obligations) Moreover, it is the purpose o&
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn18http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn18


39/162

Republic Act !!, particularly +ec) ! thereo&, to insure that the right o& the tenantto receive his la%&ul share o& the produce o& the land is unhampered by thetrans&er o& said land &rom one landholder to another)H @Almarine* v) Potenciano, 2"Phil) :3))F#!$

0n the instant case, private respondent has been cultivating the sub=ect &arm landholding %ith

a &i&ty7&i&ty @:"7:" sharing arrangement %ith the +pouses +an ;iego, petitionersHpredecessors7in7interest) Dhe passage o& R)A) 498! in !


40/162

pleadings &iled be&ore the trial court did petitioners allege grounds &or the termination o& theagricultural leasehold) ell7settled is the rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannotbe raised &or the &irst time on appeal)#28$

0n &ine, the Court, a&ter a painsta6ing eamination o& the entire records o& the case andta6ing into account the applicable la%, as %ell as the relevant =urisprudence, rules thatprivate respondent is the agricultural lessee over the land o%ned by petitioners) As such,private respondent's security o& tenure must be respected by petitioners)

Dhe Court, ho%ever, notes &rom the records o& the case that private respondent hasunilaterally decided to pay only 2:T o& the net harvests to petitioners)#23$+ince theagreement o& private respondent %ith the +pouses +an ;iego, the original o%ners, %as &or a&i&ty7&i&ty @:"7:" sharing o& the net produce o& the land, the same sharing agreement shouldbe maintained bet%een petitioners and private respondent, %ithout pre=udice to arenegotiation o& the terms o& the leasehold agreement)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is ;0+M0++E; and the decision o& the Courto& Appeals A110RME;) Private respondent is hereby ordered to pay the bac6 rentals &rom

!9" until !!2 plus interest at the legal rate) An accounting o& the production o& the sub=ectlandholding is to be made by private respondent to the Regional Drial Court o& Danauan,5atangas %hich shall determine the amount due to petitioners based on the rate orderedabove)

+- -R;ERE;)

-utierre, Jr., (Chairman), !idin, avide, Jr., and#elo, JJ., concur)

#$Penned by Associate ustice Al&redo M) Marigomen %ith the concurrence o& Associateustices osue N) 5ellosillo and Alicia () +empio7;iy)

#2$Penned by udge 1lordelis -*aeta Navarro)

#8$Anne /;/ to the Petition> Rollo, p) 8!)

#3$Ibid)

#:$Rollo, p) 3")

#4$Anne /E/ to the Petition> Rollo, p) 3)

# Rollo, p) 88)

#9$Petition, p) 8> Rollo, p) 9)

#!$Anne // to the Petition> Rollo, p) 44)

#"$Anne /1/ to the Petition> Rollo, p) 32)
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn23http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn24http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref3http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref4http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref5http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref6http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref7http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref8http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref9http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref10http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn23http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftn24http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref1http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref2http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref3http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref4http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref5http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref6http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref7http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref8http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref9http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/30511#_ftnref10


41/162

#$+ections 3 and : o& R)A) No) 8933 @!48, as amended by R)A) No) 498! @!

@2 (oluntary surrender o& the landholding by the agricultural lessee, %ritten notice o& %hichshall be served three months in advance> or

@8 Absence o& the persons under +ection nine to succeed to the lessee in the event o& deathor permanent incapacity o& the lessee)/

#3$+ee Danalgo v.Court o& Appeals, I)R) No) 783:"9, April 8", !9", !< +CRA 32) +eealso Primero v.CAR, " Phil) 4


42/162

+ource. +upreme Court E7ibrary

Dhis page %as dynamically generated

by the E7ibrary Content Management +ystem @E7ibCM+

Cua/o vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 1%$159,

September 26, 1994 2)$ SCRA 124SourceUR!httpelibrary.u(iiary.+ov.phtheboo/shelfsho7(osfrie$(ly1&2224

DB0R; ;0(0+0-N

# I)R) No) "


43/162

chemicals used in the operations o& the &arm, the balance o& the proceeds o& each portion orarea o& the &arm %as shared equally bet%een the private respondents assigned to such areaand Andres Cru*)

Andres Cru* died in ! in any case, only the t%o @2

daughters o& Andres Cru* %ere impleaded %ith Ma=or Cru* in that suit)

-n ! une !9, Cecilia and Carmen, the t%o @2 daughters o& Andres Cru*, consummatedthe sale o& the land to the Cuao spouses &or a total stated consideration o& P


44/162

the sale, and shall have priority over any other right o& redemption) Dheredemption price shall be the reasonable price o& the land at the time o& the sale)

pon the &iling o& the corresponding petition or request %ith the department orcorresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period o&one hundred and eighty days shall cease to run)

Any petition or request &or redemption shall be resolved %ithin sity days &rom the&iling thereo&> other%ise, the said period shall start to run again)

Dhe ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm shall initiate, %hile the and 5an6 shall &inancesaid redemption as in the case o& pre7emption)F

Dhe and 5an6 o& the Philippines @Land 5an6F %as impleaded as a party7de&endant in orderto require it to &inance the redemption demanded by private respondents) PA0C, asmortgagee o& the landholding under litigation, intervened in the suit and participated in the

trial thereo&)0n due time, the trial court rendered a =udgment, dated : uly !9!, in &avor o& privaterespondents) Dhe dispositive portion o& this =udgment reads as &ollo%s.

8BERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered as &ollo%s.

) ;eclaring that plainti&&s are entitled to redeem, and ordering ;e&endantsspouses Amado Cuao and Aurora Cuao to allo% plainti&&s to redeem thelandholding in question %ithin 9" days &rom &inality o& this decision at the price o&P

3) -rdering de&endant and 5an6 o& the Philippines to &inance the redemption bythe plainti&&s o& the landholding in question in accordance %ith paragraph , above,


45/162

sub=ect to the provisions o& R)A) 8933, as amended, and compliance %ith all legalrequirements>

:) -rdering de&endants Cuao +pouses to eecute a 1inancing Agreement &orAgrarian Redemption by %ay o& conveyance o& the landholding in question and todeliver to de&endant and 5an6 o& the Philippines the duly approved

subdivision?segregation survey plan o& the landholding, %hen required by thelatter>

4) -rdering plainti&&s to eecute an underta6ing to amorti*e to de&endant and5an6 o& the Philippines the total amount the latter shall have paid to de&endantsAmadeo Cuao and Aurora Cuao under the terms and conditions o&de&endant and 5an6 o& the Philippines, %hen required by the latter>

9) -rdering ;e&endants, ecept and 5an6 o& the Philippines, to pay the costs o&the suit)

+- -R;ERE;)F#$

-n appeal by the Cuao spouses, the Court o& Appeals a&&irmed the =udgment o& the trialcourt in its entirety)#2$

0n the present Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari, the principal contentions o& the Cuaospouses are the &ollo%ing.

1irstly, the original lando%ner, Andres Cru*, never gave his consent to the tenancy oragricultural leasehold relationship, since the alleged tenants or lessees had been hired merelyas paid laborers by an overseer o& the lando%ner> secondly, the element o& personalcultivation by the tenants or agricultural lessees %as absent, considering that the allegedtenants or agricultural lessees had availed themselves o& the services o& paid laborers to carryout some &arm operations> thirdly, the annotation in the Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle issued inthe name o& petitioner spouses that the land %as not tenanted, %as conclusive proo& that notenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship eisted in respect o& such land)

PA0C too came to us on its o%n Petition &or Revie% on Certiorario& the decision o& the Courto& Appeals @I)R) No) "449) PA0CHs Petition %as dismissed by the Court on 28 +eptember!!2 &or &ailure to comply %ith the requirements o& applicable court circulars) Dherea&ter,PA0C &iled an -mnibus Motion#8$in the present Petition @I)R) No) "


46/162

agricultural lessees under R)A) No) 8933, as amended, cannot be held to invalidate the rightso& a mortgagee provided &or in the Civil Code)

Dhe above issues, including that pro&&ered by PA0C, are addressed belo%)

As a preliminary point, %e note that the landholding in dispute is a mango plantation) econsider that 77 and there appears no dispute on this point 77 this plantation is covered by the

provisions o& R)A) No) 8933, as amended, +ection 44 @ o& %hich de&ines agricultural landas

8land devoted to any gro%th, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, &ishponds, idle lands, and abandoned lands as de&ined in pars) 9 and ! o& thissection, respectively)F @Emphasis supplied

0t is %orth noting also that R)A) No) !!, the earlier statute 6no%n as LDhe AgriculturalDenancy Act o& the Philippines,F e&&ective 8" August !:3, although it did not epressly de&ineagricultural land> did not limit its scope to rice land> to the contrary, Chapter 000, +ection 3o& the statute, among other provisions, epressly recogni*ed share tenancy in respect o&

crops other than rice)#3$At the time the relationship bet%een Andres Cru* and private respondents began in !:9, theapplicable statute, R)A) No) !!, de&ined Lshare tenancyF and LtenantF in the &ollo%ingterms.

8+ection 3) +ystems o& Agricultural Denancy> Dheir ;e&initions) 77 Agriculturaltenancy is classi&ied into leasehold tenancy and share tenancy)

+hare tenancy eists %henever t%o persons agree on a =oint underta6ing &oragricultural production %herein one party &urnishes the land and the other his

labor, %ith either or both contributing any one or several o& the items o&production, the tenant cultivating the land personally %ith the aid o& labor available&rom members o& his immediate &arm household, and the produce thereo& to bedivided bet%een the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respectivecontributions)

easehold tenancy eists %hen a person %ho, either personally or %ith the aid o&labor available &rom members o& his immediate &arm household, underta6es tocultivate a piece o& agricultural land susceptible o& cultivation by a single persontogether %ith members o& his immediate &arm household belonging to or legallypossessed by, another in consideration o& a &ied amount in money or in produceor in both) @As amended by Rep) Act No) 2248, approved une !, !:!)

+ection :) ;e&inition o& Derms) 77 As used in this Act.

@a A tenant shall mean a person %ho, himsel& and %ith the aid available &rom%ithin his immediate &arm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or


47/162

possessed by, another, %ith the latterHs consent &or purposes o& production, sharingthe produce %ith the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to thelandholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, underthe leasehold tenancy system)

)F

;uring the li&etime o& Andres Cru*, R)A) No) 8933 @approved on 9 August !48 %ent intoe&&ect) +ection 44 o& R)A) No) 8933 as amended by R)A) No) 489! @approved on "+eptember !

@2 Dhe sub=ect matter o& the relationship is agricultural land>

@8 Dhere is consent bet%een the parties to the relationship>

@3 Dhe purpose o& the relationship is to bring about agricultural production>

@: Dhere is personal cultivation on the part o& the tenant or agricultural lessee>and

@4 Dhe harvest is shared bet%een the lando%ner and the tenant or agriculturallessee)#:$

0n respect o& the element o& consent, petitioner Cuao spouses contend that that element%as absent in the case at bar because private respondents, alleged tenants or agriculturallessees, had merely been hired by an overseer, one Evaristo Erilla, %ithout the authority o&Andres Cru* or his successors7in7interest, his t%o @2 daughters Carmen and Cecilia)


48/162

0t appears &rom the record that Evaristo Erilla had acted as overseer o& the land and the &armoperations therein, both during the li&etime o& Andres Cru* and a&ter his death %hen his t%o@2 daughters succeeded to the o%nership o& the land)#4$Considering that privaterespondents had %or6ed on the land since !:9, %e &ind it very di&&icult to suppose that theoriginal lando%ner Andres Cru* had been una%are all along o& the presence and the activities,or o& the status, o& private respondents in his mango plantation) 1rom !:9 up to the time o&

his death in !


49/162

portions o& the landholding %hich had been assigned to them, that private respondents hadbeen hired simply to carry out particular =obs such as the LsmudgingF or Lsmo6ingF o& themango trees) Dhe Court o& Appeals, ho%ever, &ound that private respondents had carried outall phases o& &arm operations leading to the production o& mangoes, &rom the &irst stage o&clearing the land and there planting the mango seedlings and then tending the trees, %eedingand %atering them, &ertili*ing the ground, etc), until they bore &ruit, including other tas6s

essential to induce the trees to bring &orth more bounti&ul harvest such as smudging orsmo6ing the trees and applying &ertili*ers and chemical &lo%er7inducers)#9$0t is use&ul tonote in this connection that the concept o& LcultivationF is not limited to the plo%ing orharro%ing o& the soil as in rice and corn &ields) Cultivation includes all activities designed topromote the gro%th and care o& the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by generalindustry, so that it may bring &orth more products or &ruits) +uch is the gist o& our case la% inrespect o& coconut plantations,#!$case la% that %e consider equally applicable to mangoplantations)

Petitioner spouses also aver that such cultivation as %as done by private respondent tenantsor lessees %as not LpersonalF in character, considering that private respondents had availedthemselves o& the services o& &arm laborers hired by the overseer) nder the statutoryde&inition o& an agricultural lessee quoted earlier, an agricultural lessee is a person L%ho byhimsel&, or %ith the aid available &rom %ithin his immediate &arm householdF cultivates theland belonging to or possessed by another)#"$Dhe &act, ho%ever, that a tenant or anagricultural lessee may have been assisted by &arm laborers, on an occasional or temporarybasis, hired by the lando%ners, does not preclude the element o& Lpersonal cultivationFessential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship) 0n ;e Iu*man v) +antos,#$themere &act that the tenant did not do all the &arm %or6 himsel& but temporarily or on anemergency basis utili*ed the services o& others to assist him, %as not ta6en to mean that thetenant had thereby breached the requirement imposed by the statute) e do not consider

that the statute prohibits the tenant or agricultural lessee %ho generally %or6s the landhimsel& or %ith the aid o& members o& his immediate household, &rom availing occasionally ortemporarily o& the help o& others in speci&ic =obs)#2$

e agree, there&ore, %ith the Court o& Appeals that all the above7noted elements o& a sharetenancy and an agricultural lease relationship eisted bet%een the lando%ner@s and privaterespondents and that accordingly, private respondents %ere share tenants and lateragricultural lessees o& Andres Cru*, and later o& his t%o @2 daughters and ultimately o&petitioners Cuao spouses)

Petitioner Cuao spouses also contend that the annotation in the Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle

standing in their names and covering the totality o& the land originally o%ned by Andres Cru*that said land is not tenanted, is conclusive as to the absence o& a tenancy @or o& anagricultural leasehold relationship bet%een the lando%ner@s and private respondents) Dhereare &ive @: Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle standing in the name o& the Cuao spouses and eachCerti&icate o& Ditle contains the &ollo%ing annotation.

8Entry No) 82


50/162

Certi&ication. Eugenio 5) 5ernardo, MAR -0C

Certi&ies that the property described in this Ditle is not tenanted)

;ate o& 0nstr). une 9, !9)

;ate o& 0nscript). une 23, !9 at .: p)m)F#8$

Dhe issue thus posed is %hether or not such annotation %as conclusive upon the trial court,the Court o& Appeals and this Court, inso&ar as the characteri*ation o& the relationshipbet%een the registered o%ners o& the land and private respondents is concerned)

e believe and so hold that such annotation cannot be regarded as conclusive upon thecourts o& =ustice as to the legal nature and incidents o& the relationship bet%een thelando%ner@s in this case and private respondents) 1irstly, the annotation serves basicallyas notice to all persons o& the eistence o& the Certi&ication issued by Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo,but neither adds to the validity or correctness o& that certi&ication nor converts a de&ective

and invalid instrument into a valid one as bet%een the parties)#3$+econdly, the certi&icationissued by Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo o& the MAR @Ministry o& Agrarian Re&orm is very much li6ethe certi&ications issued by the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm and other o&&icials o& the Ministryand later the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm concerning the eistence o& tenancyrelationships in respect o& agricultural lands &rom %hich persons, %ho claim to be tenants, aresought to be e=ected)#:$0t is %ell7settled that the &indings o& or certi&ications issued by the+ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm, or his authori*ed representative, in a given locality concerningthe presence or absence o& a tenancy relationship bet%een the contending parties is merelypreliminary or provisional and is not binding upon the courts) Dhus, in Puertollano, et al) v)Bon) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, et al),#4$this Court held that.

81rom the &oregoing provisions o& the la% #+ection 2 P);) No) 84 and +ection 2 o&P);) No) "89$, it is clear that the trial court cannot ta6e cogni*ance o& anyGe=ectment case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant in anagricultural land primarily devoted to rice and cornH %ithout &irst re&erring the sameto the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm or his authori*ed representative in the locality&or a preliminary determination o& the relationship bet%een the contending parties)0& said o&&icer &inds that the case is proper &or determination by the court it shall socerti&y and thence said court may assume =urisdiction over the dispute orcontroversy) +uch preliminary determination o& the relationship ho%ever, is notbinding upon the court) +aid court may a&ter due hearing con&irm, reverse or

modi&y said preliminary determination as the evidence and substantial merit o& thecase may %arrant)F#


51/162

registration court cannot ad=udicate the eistence or non7eistence o& a tenancy relationshipsince eclusive =urisdiction over such relationship %as vested in the Court o& AgrarianRelations#!$and later in the Regional Drial Court)#2"$

e turn, &inally, to the right to redeem the land here involved) 0n vie% o& our conclusion thatprivate respondents %ere share tenants and later agricultural lessees o& the o%ner@s o& thatland, it &ollo%s that private respondents %ere entitled to redeem the land upon the alienationthereo& by the t%o @2 daughters o& Andres Cru* in &avor o& petitioner Cuao spouses) Dhisright o& redemption is statutory in character, that is to say, it is created by and rests upon theprovisions o& a particular la%) 0t attaches to a particular landholding by operation o& la%)0n Bidalgo v) Bidalgo,#2$the Court stressed that.

8 #D$he and Re&orm Code &orges by operation o& la%, bet%een the lando%nerand the &armer7 be a leasehold tenant or temporarily a share tenant7 a vinculum=uris %ith certain vital consequences, such as security o& tenure o& the tenant andthe tenantHs right to continue in possession o& the land he %or6s despite theepiration o& the contract or the sale or trans&er o& the land to third persons, and

no%, more basically, the &armerHs pre7emptive right to buy the land he cultivatesunder section o& the Code, as %ell as the right to redeem the land, i& sold to athird person %ithout his 6no%ledge, under section 2 o& thisCode)F#22$@Emphases supplied

hile conceding that the la% grants priority to the tenantHs right o& redemption, PA0Ccontends vigorously that this priority etends only in respect o& other rights o& redemptionand not in respect o& speci&ic lien o& a voluntary mortgage) Dhe claim o& PA0C is that itsmortgage lien subsists and attaches to the tenanted land even a&ter it has been redeemed bythe tenants and that, consequently, PA0C %ould then still be entitled to &oreclose its mortgagelien over the property here involved)

PA0CHs argument does not persuade)

As discussed earlier, the land %as, in the hands o& the t%o @2 daughters o& Andres Cru* ando& petitioner Cuao spouses, already sub=ect to the right o& redemption vested in privaterespondents) 0t &ollo%s that %hen the Cuao spouses mortgaged that same land to secure aloan obtained &rom PA0C, PA0CHs right as mortgagee %as sub=ect to, and =unior to, the priorright o& private respondents to redeem the said property) Put a little di&&erently, %hat theCuao spouses mortgaged to PA0C %as not absolute or unquali&ied dominium plenum overthe land, but rather a right o& o%nership quali&ied by and sub=ect to the right o& redemption o&private respondents) PA0C, o& course, could not have acquired rights superior to those o& its

mortgagors)

PA0C asserts that it became mortgagee o& the land in good &aith, that it had relied on theannotation in the Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle o& the Cuao spouses re&erring to thecerti&ication o& Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo that the property %as not tenanted) e consider that amortgagee is not entitled to place absolute reliance upon Mr) 5ernardoHs certi&ication %hich,as already noted, cannot prevent a court &rom reaching a di&&erent conclusion) Dhe record
http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn19http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn20http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn21http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn22http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn19http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn20http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn21http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/32224#_ftn22


52/162

indicates, in this connection, that the Cuao spouses obtained their loan &rom PA0C one daybe&ore the Certi&icates o& Ditle %ere issued in the name o& Cuao spouses)#28$As pointed outearlier, litigation had by then bro6en out bet%een private respondents and the t%o @2daughters o& Andres Cru* together %ith Ma=or Cru*) PA0C has not demonstrated that, %itheven a modest degree o& diligence on its part as a prospective mortgagee, it could not haveacquired actual notice o& such litigation)

0t is especially note%orthy that although the Cuao spouses purchased &rom Cecilia andCarmen, the t%o @2 daughters o& Andres Cru*, the land in question &or the price o&P


53/162

de&ined to mean Lthe gathering o& the &ruits or the produce o& a crop other than rice)F +eealso Mendo*a vs) Manguiat, !4 Phil 8"! @!:3> ;e los Reyes vs) Espinelli, 8" +CRA : Dongson vs) Court o& Appeals, 2: +CRA 324 @!!2)

#:$Castillo vs) Court o& Appeals, 2": +CRA :2! @!!2> Prudential 5an6 vs) Iapultos, 9+CRA :! @!!"> amoras vs) +u, 93 +CRA 239 @!!"> Castro vs) Court o& Appeals, 4!+CRA 898 @!9!)

#4$Drial Court ;ecision, p) 8> Records, p) 3":)

# Rollo, p) 98)

#9$Court o& Appeals ;ecision, p) 2> Rollo, p) !")

#!$Iuerrero vs) Court o& Appeals, 32 +CRA 84 @!94> Coconut Cooperative Mar6etingAssociation @C-C-MA vs) Court o& Appeals, 43 +CRA :49 @!99> Bernande* vs)0ntermediate Appellate Court, 9! +CRA #8$Records, pp) 28, 2:, 2


54/162

litigation involving the =uridical nature o& the relationship bet%een the lando%ner and personsclaiming to be tenants o& the land)

#9$;i*on v) 5anues, "3 Phil) 3"< @!:9> apore v) Pascual, "< Phil) 4!: @!4")

#!$+ec) :3, R)A) No) 8933, as amended> +ec) 2, P);) No) !34> 1errer vs) (illamor, 4"+CRA "4 @! Records, p) 3":)

+ource. +upreme Court E7ibraryDhis page %as dynamically generated

by the E7ibrary Content Management +ystem @E7ibCM+

0"#l#pp#'e Nat#o'al a' vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 1%5$6%, &uly $, 199$ 2$5 SCRA $1SourceUR!httpelibrary.u(iiary.+ov.phtheboo/shelfsho7(

Agrarian Reform Law Cases I

Documents

Transcript of Agrarian Reform Law Cases I