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
*$(aya vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. %%11&, 'tober 2&, 1992 215 SCRA 11"...................................&4
Cua,o vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 1"!159, September 26, 1994 2&! SCRA 124..............................42
-hilippi$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$( their Abstrats.............................................................................................%!
0illaflor vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95694, 'tober 9, 199! 2%" SCRA 29%...................................%9
Republi vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122256, 'tober &", 1996 26& SCRA !5%............................1&1
1a$( .a$/ of the -hilippi$es vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 11%!12, 'tober 6, 1995 249 SCRA 149
................................................................................................................................................................1&5
2o$+so$ vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. !!1"4, November 6, 1992 215 SCRA 42%.............................145
3epartme$t of A+raria$ Reform A(4u(iatio$ .oar( vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 11&22")21,
#a$uary 21, 199! 266 SCRA 4"6...........................................................................................................15"
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 96492,
November 26, 1992 216 SCRA 25
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&"59%
Petitioners Romeo Reyes, Angel Parayao and Emilio Mananghaya question the respondent
Court's decision promulgated on November 22, !!",#$ %hich a&&irmed %ith modi&ication the
agrarian court's decision promulgated 'anuary ", !!",#2$ %hich ordered them and the
other de&endants therein to, among others, restore possession o& the disputed landholding to
private respondent, Eu&rocina (da) dela Cru*) +aid respondent court's decision is
no% &inal and e,ecutory as to -lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo, the other
de&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 shall
be 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 2ots Nos) 34 and "4, 5loc6 2, Psd7893:8
o& the 5ahay Pare Estate, 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, %ith an area o& 28,"""
square meters and !,""" square meters, respectively) ;evoted to the production
o& 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 succeeded
him as bona fide tenant o& the sub=ect lots> that bet%een 'uly < to 'uly :, !93,
-lympio Mendo*a, in conspiracy %ith the other de&endants, prevented her
daughter (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& the
instant case, de&endants had re&used to vacate and surrender the lots, thus
violating her tenancy rights) Plainti&& there&ore prayed &or =udgment &or the
recovery o& possession, and damages %ith a %rit o& preliminary mandatory
in=unction in the meantime)
;e&endants Reyes, Parayao, Aguinaldo and Mananghaya, duly elected and?or
appointed barangay o&&icials o& 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga, denied
inter&erence in the tenancy relationship e,isting bet%een plainti&& and de&endant
Mendo*a, particularly in the cultivation o& the latter's &arm lots) Claiming that they
have al%ays e,ercised &airness, equity, reason and impartiality in the discharge o&
their o&&icial &unctions, they as6ed &or the dismissal o& the case and claimed moral
damages and attorney's &ees in the total amount o& P4:,""")"" @Ans%er %ith
Counterclaim, Records, pp) 397:A)
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 ta,es due the government, as his de&enses) Be also
demanded actual and e,emplary damages, as %ell as attorney's &ees @Ans%er, pp)
<<7<9A)
;uring the pendency o& the case in the lo%er court, Mendo*a %as in possession o&
the sub=ect lots and had cultivated the same) Cpon motion o& plainti&&, the court
directed its ;eputy +heri&& to supervise the harvesting o& the palay crops, to cause
the threshing thereo& and to deposit the net harvest @a&ter deducting &rom the
gross harvest the seeds used and the e,penses incurredA, in a bonded %arehouse
o& the locality sub=ect to the disposition o& the court)/#8$
Dhe respondent Court rendered =udgment a&&irming the appealed agrarian court's decision
%ith the modi&ication that 2ot "4 is not covered by it)
Dhe dispositive portion o& the appealed decision, %hich %as modi&ied, states as &ollo%s.
/EBERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered, in &avor o& plainti&& and against
de&endants.
-n the Mandatory 0n=unction.
) -rdering said de&endants to restore possession o& the landholding sub=ect o& the
action to the plainti&& and en=oining said de&endants and any person claiming under
them to desist &rom molesting them or inter&ering %ith the possession and
cultivation o& the landholding descripted in paragraph 8 o& the complaint, to %it.
1arm 2ots Nos) 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, o%ned by a
certain 'uan Mendo*a, and devoted principally to the production o& palay, as evidenced by a
Certi&ication &rom the Ministry o& Agrarian Re&orm issued on 'uly 8", !93)
2) aA -rdering the de&endants to vacate the premises o& the t%o landholding in
question and to respect the tenancy rights o& plainti&& %ith respect to the same>
bA -rdering de&endants, =ointly and severally to pay unto plainti&& 22"
cavans o& palay or its equivalent in cash o& P88,""")"" &rom the principal crop year
o& !93, and every harvest time until de&endants &inally vacate and surrender
possession and cultivation o& the landholding in question to plainti&&)
cA the prayer &or moral damages, not having been su&&iciently proved, the same is
denied)
dA -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 e,penses
have been paid to de&endant -lympio Mendo*a> and i& said net deposits %ith the
Court or the %arehouses as ordered by the Court are insu&&icient, then the balance
should 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$he lone issue o& %hether or not they can be held liable, =ointly and severally,
%ith the other de&endants, &or the harvests o& the litigated property, 2ot No) 34, or
the money equivalent thereo& starting &rom the principal crop years o&
!93 and every harvest time therea&ter until the possession and cultivation o& the
a&orestated landholding are &inally surrendered to the private respondent)/#:$
0t is the position o& petitioners that they are not liable =ointly and severally %ith -lympio
Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo because the present petition involves 2ot No) 34, 5loc6 2,
Psd7893:8 o& the 5ahay Pare Estate, 5ahay Pare, Candaba, Pampanga and not 2ot No) "4 o&
the same estate, %hich lot %as purchased by petitioner Romeo Reyes &rom -lympio
Mendo*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 their
supposed participation in the dispossession o& private respondent &rom the disputed
landholding, petitioners present the +eptember 8", !9< Resolution o& 0nvestigating 1iscal
'esus M) Pamintuan, as approved by Pampanga Provincial 1iscal (illamor 0) ;i*on, in 0)+) No)
9:<4,#<$ %herein private respondent's complaint against petitioners and the other
de&endants in the agrarian court &or violation o& P);) :98#9$ %as dismissed, to sho% that
private respondent's /point is already settled and considered closed)F#!$ 2astly, petitioners
claim that they %ere included in the present controversy so that their political career %ould
be destroyed)#"$
Private respondents deny petitioners' allegations and contend that it %as petitioners %ho
conspired %ith -lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo in e=ecting them not only &rom 2ot
No) 34 but also &rom 2ot No) "4) Dhey maintain that it %as in 1armlot No) 34 &rom %here
they %ere e=ected and dispossessed, so much so that even i& 1armlot No) "4 %as removed
by the Court o& Appeals &rom the =udgment, as 1armlot No) 34 %as harvesting palay %orth at
least P88,""")"" per year since !9!, private respondents, %ho are entitled
to the possession and peace&ul en=oyment o& the &armlot as provided &or in +ection 28 o& the
Agrarian Re&orm 2a%, should be compensated &or the lost income by the petitioners %ho are
solidarily liable %ith -lympio Mendo*a and +everino Aguinaldo)#$
Ee &ind &or the private respondents)
0t is clear that petitioners are as6ing Cs to re7e,amine all the evidence already
presented and evaluated by the trial court and re7evaluated again by the respondent
appellate court) +aid evidence served as basis in arriving at the trial court and appellate
court's &indings o& &act) Ee shall not analy*e such evidence all over again but instead
put finis to the &actual &indings in this case) +ettled is the rule that only questions o& la% may
be raised in a petition &or revie% on certiorari under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court#2$ absent
the e,ceptions %hich do not obtain in the instant case)#8$
Ee agree %ith the appellate court in its ratiocination, %hich Ee adopt, on %hy it has to
dismiss the appeal) +aid the Court.
/0n her Complaint, plainti&&7appellee alleged that she Gis the tenant o& 1arm 2ots
Nos) 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) A) Bo%ever, during (ioleta's testimony, she
clari&ied that actually only 2ot No) 34 containing an area o& 28,""" square meters
is the one involved in the dispute) 2ot No) "4, %hich contains an area o& !,"""
square meters, is not included in this controversy @D)+)N), August ", !9!, p) :>
May 9, !9!, p) 2A) Dhis statement %as corroborated by plainti&&'s counsel, Atty)
Arturo Rivera, %ho in&ormed the court that the !,""" square meter lot is sub=ect
o& a pending case be&ore the MDC o& +ta) Ana, Pampanga @0bid), p) :A) Dhe
inconsistency bet%een the averment o& the complaint and the testimony o& the
%itness should not be ta6en against appellee not only because there %as no
sho%ing that she intended to mislead de&endants and even the trial court on the
sub=ect matter o& the suit) 0t %ould appear that 2ot No) "4 had been included in
the complaint since together %ith 2ot 34, it is o%ned by -limpio's &ather)
Ee also concur %ith the trial court's &inding on the participation o& the other
appellants 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, thus
lending credence to the allegation that de&endant -limpio, together %ith his co7
de&endants, prevented plainti&& and her %or6ers &rom entering the land through
'strong arm methods)' @;ecision o& RDC, Records, vol) 00, p) :43A)
1inally, %e rule that the trial court did not err %hen it &avorably considered the
a&&idavits o& Eu&rocina and E&ren Decson @Anne,es /5/ and /C/A although the
a&&iants %ere not presented and sub=ected to cross7e,amination) +ection 4 o& P);)
No) !34 provides that the GRules o& Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases
even in a suppletory character)H Dhe same provision states that '0n the hearing,
investigation and determination o& any question or controversy, a&&idavits and
counter7a&&idavits may be allo%ed and are admissible in evidence)'
Moreover, in agrarian cases, the quantum o& evidence required is no more than
substantial evidence) Dhis substantial evidence rule %as incorporated in section 9,
P);) No) !34 %hich too6 e&&ect on 'une <, !<4 @Castro vs) CA, I)R) No) 8348,
'anuary 24, !9!A) 0n 5agsican vs) Bon) Court o& Appeals, 3 +CRA 224, the
+upreme Court de&ined %hat substantial evidence is.
'+ubstantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an
ordinary civil case) 0t has been de&ined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not sho%n by stressing
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, &or the appellate court
cannot substitute its o%n =udgment or criteria &or that o& the trial court in determining
%herein lies the %eight o& evidence or %hat evidence is entitled to belie&)H /#3$
WHEREFORE, &inding no reversible error in the decision appealed &rom, the petition is
hereby ;EN0E; &or lac6 o& merit) Dhe decision o& the Court o& Appeals promulgated on
November 22, !!" is A110RME; in toto. Costs against the petitioners)
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur)
#$ ;ecision, CA7I)R) No) +P 2":29 @CARA, penned by 'ustice Al&redo 2) 5enipayo and
concurred in by 'ustices Cesar ;) 1rancisco and 1ortunato A) (ailoces)
#2$ ;ecision o& the RDC, 5ranch J2(0, 8rd 'udicial Region, +an 1ernando, Pampanga acting as
an agrarian court> penned by 'udge Norberto C) Ponce)
#8$ Op cit., pp) 873> Rollo, pp) 2:724)
#3$ -riginal Records, pp) :4:7:44)
#:$ Petitioners' Memorandum, p) <> Rollo, p) 42)
#4$ Petitioners' Memorandum, p) "> Rollo, p) 4:)
#<$ Anne, /5/, Petition> Rollo, pp) 2"72))
#9$ Prescribing Penalties &or the Cnla%&ul E=ectment, E,clusion, Removal or -uster o& Denant7
1armers &rom their 1armholdings)
#!$ Petitioners' Memorandum, pp) "7> Rollo, pp) 4:744)
#"$ Petition, p) !> Rollo, p) <)
#$ Private respondents' Memorandum, pp) 37:> Rollo, pp) <87<3)
#2$ ;ecision, Misa vs) CA, I)R) No) !<2!, August :, !!2, pp) 37:)
#8$ Dhe case o& Medina v) Asistio, I)R) No) <:3:", ! +CRA 29, 2287223 @!!"A
enumerates several instances %hen &indings o& &act may be passed upon and revie%ed by this
Court, none o& %hich obtain herein.
/@A Ehen the conclusion is a &inding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
con=ectures @'oaquin v) Navarro, !8 Phil) 2:< #!:8$A> @2A Ehen the in&erence made is
mani&estly mista6en, absurd or impossible @2una v) 2inato6, <3 Phil) : #!32$A> @8A Ehere
there is a grave abuse o& discretion @5uyco v) People, !: Phil) 3:8 #!::$A> @3A Ehen the
=udgment is based on a misapprehension o& &acts @Cru* v) +osing, 2739<:, Nov) 2<, !:8A>
@:A Ehen the &indings o& &act are con&licting @Casica v) (illaseca, 27!:!" Ap) 8", !:<>
unrep)A> @4A Ehen the Court o& Appeals, in ma6ing its &indings, %ent beyond the issues o& the
case and the same is contrary to the admissions o& both appellant and appellee
@Evangelista v) Alto +urety and 0nsurance Co), "8 Phil) 3" #!:9$A> @<A Dhe &indings o& the
Court o& Appeals are contrary to those o& the trial court @Iarcia v) Court o& Appeals, 88 +CRA
422 #!<"$A> +acay v) +andiganbayan, 32 +CRA :!8 #!94$A> @9A Ehen the &indings o& &act
are conclusions %ithout citation o& speci&ic evidence on %hich they are based @Ibid),A> @!A
Ehen the &acts set &orth in the petition as %ell as in the petitioners' main and reply brie&s are
not disputed by the respondents @Ibid),A> and @"A Dhe &indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals
is premised on the supposed absence o& evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on
record @+ala*ar v) Iutierre*, 88 +CRA 232 #!<"$A)/
Ibid), p) :)
#3$ ;ecision, CA7I)R) +P 2":29 @CARA, pp) 47<> Rollo, pp) 2972!)
C"#co vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122$%4,
&a'uary 5, 199( 2(4 SCRA ))
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&5&!2
10R+D ;0(0+0-N
# I)R) No) 22<"3, 'anuary ":, !!9 $
PE;R- CB0C-, REPRE+ENDE; 5K E021RE;- CB0C-, A+ ADD-RNEK70N 1ACD, PED0D0-NER,
(+) DBE B-N) C-CRD -1 APPEA2+, AN; MARD0N MANANIBAKA AN; 2E-N02A
MANANIBAKA, RE+P-N;END+)
; E C 0 + 0 - N
VITUG, J.:
Claiming to be the la%&ul o%ner o& a lot located in +ta) 5arbara, 5aliuag, 5ulacan, pursuant to
a &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 @LRDCFA o& Malolos, 5ulacan, against
private 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 but
that 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) Respondent
spouses assert that the true o%ners o& the property in question, namely, ;on Ra&ael and
;oMa +alud Chico, %ere succeeded upon their death by their son ;el&in Chico> that private
respondents had long been in la%&ul possession o& the sub=ect parcel o& land as tenants o& the
deceased 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 its
possession to petitioner)
Private respondents did not ta6e an appeal &rom the decision> instead, they initiated %ith the
Court o& Appeals a petition &or certiorari under Rule 4: o& the Rules o& Court to annul and set
aside the RDC decision &or allegedly being void) Private respondents claimed that their
tenancy relationship %ith the original o%ner %as an agrarian dispute cogni*able e,clusively
by the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udication 5oard @L;ARA5FA, pursuant to E)-) No)
22! and No) 2!7A and R)A) No) 44:<, and that, consequently, the decision o& the trial court
%as a complete nullity &or %ant o& =urisdiction)
-n 4 'une !!:, the Court o& Appeals, acquiescing to the claim o& tenancy relationship
bet%een the parties, promulgated its =udgment granting the petition and setting aside the
assailed decision o& the Regional Drial Court) Dhe appellate court vie%ed the dispute bet%een
petitioner and private respondents to be an agrarian re&orm matter> it thus held that the
;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm, not the trial court a quo, had la%&ul =urisdiction over the
case) 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, thus
denying him procedural due process)
2) Dhe Bonorable court o& Appeals #has$ erred in not dismissing the petition as the proper
remedy is ordinary appeal and not a petition &or certiorari)
8) Dhe Bonorable Court o& Appeals #has$ erred in &inding that the dispute bet%een the
parties is agrarian in nature)
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 the
concomitant nature o& an action, is determined by the averments in the complaint and not by
the de&enses contained in the ans%er)#2$ 0& it %ere other%ise, it %ould not be too di&&icult to
have a case either thro%n out o& court or its proceedings unduly delayed by simple
stratagem)
Dhe complaint &iled by petitioner be&ore the trial court is one &or recovery o& possession, also
6no%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 the
dispute, it %ould be essential to &irst establish all its indispensable elements, to %it. @A Dhat
the parties are the lando%ner and the tenant or agricultural lessee> @2A that the sub=ect
matter o& the relationship is an agricultural land> @8A that there is consent bet%een the
parties to the relationship> @3A that the purpose o& the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production> @:A that there is personal cultivation on the part o& the tenant or
agricultural lessee> and @4A that the harvest is shared bet%een the lando%ner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee)#8$ 0t is not enough that these requisites are alleged> these requisites
must be sho%n in order to divest the regular court o& its =urisdiction in proceedings la%&ully
began 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 private
respondents and petitioner or their predecessors7in7interest, let alone that %hich %ould so
characteri*e the relationship as an agrarian dispute) 0t %ould appear that the o%ner o& the
land, ;on Ra&ael Chico, gave the property to petitioner Pedro Chico in !:3#3$ and, since
then, the latter or his representative had ta6en over the land and had e,ercised acts o&
o%nership thereover)#:$ Dhere %as no evidence adduced that any tenancy agreement had
been 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$ Eorse, the land sub=ect matter o& the controversy %as not sho%n to be an agricultural
land> to the contrary, the land %ould appear to be located %ithin a residential area, in
5arangay +ta) 5arbara, 5aliuag, 5ulacan, ad=acent to the National Bigh%ay) -n the disputed
parcel, a mere 8,94: square meters, %as the old residential house o& petitioner, as %ell as the
portion occupied by private respondents consisting o& an area o& :"" square meters, and a
&e% mango trees, numbering about seven or eight)#<$ Compounding the matter, no receipt,
or any other evidence, %as presented by private respondents to prove their claim that the
harvest %as shared bet%een petitioners and private respondents)#9$
+el&7serving statements in pleadings are inadequate> proo& must be adduced) Dhis burden
private respondents have &ailed to discharge be&ore the trial court> i& private respondents
have &elt other%ise, the remedy should have been a timely appeal) Certainly, Rule 4: o& the
Rules o& Court cannot be a substitute &or lost appeal)
EBERE1-RE, the instant petition is IRANDE;> the assailed decision o& the Court o& Appeals
o& 4 'une !!: and Resolution o& "4 November !!: are hereby +ED A+0;E and the
questioned decision o& the Regional Drial Court o& Malolos, 5ulacan, in Civil Case No) 39<7M7
!2, is RE0N+DADE;) Costs against private respondents)
+- -R;ERE;)
avide, Jr., !ellosillo, and "apunan, JJ., concur)
#$ 'oint ;ecision in Civil Case No) <8497M and Civil Case No) <89"7M, RDC, Malolos,
5ulacan)
#2$ +armiento vs. CA, 2:" +CRA "9> +antos vs. CA, 23 +CRA 42)
#8$ CuaMo 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)
#<$ Rollo, pp) 8:784)
#9$ 0bid), p) 84)

+ource. +upreme Court E72ibrary
Dhis page %as dynamically generated
by the E72ibrary Content Management +ystem @E72ibCM+A
*ar+e vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 1%4$$4,
$5, *ctober (, 199$ 2(% SCRA 2)5
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&5111
Drial and appellate courts determine the e,istence @or none,istenceA o& a tenancy relationship
on the basis o& the evidence presented by the parties) Certi&ications o& administrative
agencies and o&&icers declaring the e,istence o& a tenancy relation are merely provisional)
Dhey are persuasive but not binding on courts, %hich must ma6e their o%n &indings)
The Case
Dhis principle is stressed by this Court as it rules on the instant petition &or revie% on
certiorari under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court assailing the 1ebruary 24, !!2 ;ecision#$ o&
Respondent Court o& Appeals#2$ in CA I)R) C( No) 2!3:87:3, the dispositive portion o& %hich
reads.#8$
8EBERE1-RE, the =udgment appealed &rom is set aside and another one entered
as &ollo%s.
0n Civil Case No) <!<:.
@A Plainti&& Nacarias -arde is ordered reinstated as la%&ul tenant7tiller o& 2ot < o& the
Agrarian Re&orm Pro=ect &or 5arangay Iotob, Camalig, Albay and restored immediately to the
possession thereo&)
@2A ;e&endants Rogelio Molar and (ilma Molar are ordered to pay damages to plainti&&
Nacarias -arde in the sum o& P:,9:")"")
Dhe decision o& the court a quo dismissing the complaint o& Presentacion Molar in Civil Case
No) <!4" is hereby a&&irmed)
No pronouncement as to costs)F
Although -arde %as reinstated as tenant by the Court o& Appeals, he is nonetheless
dissatis&ied and claims a larger amount o& damages) -n the other hand, Molar desires to be
recogni*ed as a tenant o& private respondents and to be granted damages &or her eviction)
Bence, this recourse to this Court)
The Facts
Dhe Court &inds that the &acts and allegations o& the contending parties are &airly recited in
the trial courtHs decision, vi*).#3$
8Dhe plainti&&s #petitioners herein$ see6 to en=oin the de&endants #private
respondents herein$ &rom removing the &ormer as tenant7tillers o& the land in
question and are li6e%ise requesting &or damages, as a result o& their dislocation
&rom the land)
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&& Nacarias -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 son
o& 5asilio Molar>
:) Dhat de&endant spouses Eil&redo Iuerrero and 2ourdes Iuerrero sold the herein involved
parcels o& land to the de&endant spouses Rogelio Molar and (ilma Molar sometime in -ctober
!9<)
Dhe issue to be determined as per order o& the Court dated : +eptember !99 in
Civil Case No) <!<:, and order dated 2< 'une !99 in Civil Case No) <!4", is
%hether plainti&&s in both cases are tenants o& de&endants in possession o& the land
and cannot be e=ected there&rom e,cept &or cause)
0t is the claim o& the plainti&&s that they are #tenant7tillers$ o& the land in question)
Plainti&& Nacarias -arde, testi&ied that he began to till the land in question on April
2!, !43 %hen he got married to the daughter o& 1rancisco Molar, and to
substantiate his claim, he presented as one o& his %itnesses Iregorio Magnaye, an
employee o& the 5ureau o& 2ands) Be %as the Chie& o& a +urvey Deam that
conducted the survey in Iotob) Dhe other members %ere technicians &rom the
;AR)
Be testi&ied on cross7e,amination that in preparing the +ummary 2ists o& the
tenant7tillers in Iotob, Camalig, Albay, they conducted a barrio assembly) Dhey
arrived at the conclusion that certain persons %ere tilling certain properties o%ned
by other persons because that %as the listing o& the ;AR technicians @p) , tsn,
Nov) 4, !99A) 5e&ore the survey %as conducted, they gathered the tenants
together %ith the barangay o&&icials and intervie%ed them i& they are the ones
cultivating the property) Dhe ones listed in the +ummary 2ists %ere the ones
%hose names %ere given by the barrio o&&icials @p) 8, tsn) Nov) 4, !99A) 5ased
on their survey, Nacarias -arde %as tilling t%o lots, 2ots < and 9) Dhese %ere
the areas pointed to by Pedro Cervantes @p) :, tsn) Nov) 4, !99A) @Nacarias,
ho%ever, %hen he testi&ied claims that he is tilling only one lot, 2ot <A Eitness
Magnaye alleged that as &ar as the property being tilled by Nacarias is concerned,
in&ormation %as given by Pedro Cervantes @p) !A) ;uring the survey, Nacarias
-arde %as not around) Nacarias admitted that %hen the survey %as made, he %as
not present)
Another %itness presented %as Iregorio Medina) Be %as the President o& the
+amahang Nayon o& Iotob in !<<) Be 6no%s the plainti&& Nacarias -arde because
the latter is a member o& the +amahang Nayon) Be alleged that he is not very
particular about the land that the &armer7members till, but %hen they register &or
membership, he is in&ormed that they are leaseholders @p) 2, tsn) 9 ;ec) !99A) Be
signed this E,hibit A, in !<<, %hen he %as called by the ;AR personnel to their
o&&ice) Dhe document %as already prepared) Be did not read the contents) Be
really does not 6no% i& Nacarias %as doing the &arming all by himsel& because
several people are tilling the land aside &rom Nacarias) Nacarias li6e%ise %or6s on
the &ield o& others) Be had no hand in the preparation o& the lists and he %as not
present %hen the persons included therein signed their names) Be li6e%ise did not
veri&y %hether the persons in the list %ere really &armers o& the landholdings as
mentioned therein) Be 6no%s &or a &act that the &ormer &armer o& these lands in
question %as 1rancisco Molar)
Another %itness presented %as Iil Nabio) Be testi&ied that he personally 6no%s
Nacarias -arde being a neighbor) Nacarias is tilling a land o%ned by Atty) Eil&redo
Iuerrero and sa% him %or6ing on the &ield)
Dhe %i&e, Melicia -arde, li6e%ise too6 the %itness stand and testi&ied that as
tenant7tillers, they gave the o%nerHs share to Atty) Eil&redo Iuerrero)
-n the claim o& plainti&& Presentacion Molar in Civil Case <!4", she alleged that she
is a tenant7lessee o& the land in question previously o%ned by Atty) Eil&redo
Iuerrero) +he started tilling the land in !4:) 5e&ore, she o%ned a carabao but
sold it) +he caused the land to be %or6ed on GPa6ya%H basis, hiring di&&erent
persons &or di&&erent %or6) +he actually does not till the land @p) 4, tsn) 'uly ,
!9!A)
According to Nacarias -arde %ho testi&ied in behal& o& Presentaction @sicA, the latter
began tilling in !49) +he is not married and she only hires laborers to till the land)
0t %as 1rancisco Molar %ho distributed to his children the land they are &arming)
Presentacion hires laborers to prepare and plant the land) +he does not actually till
the land @p) 9, tsn) May 4, !9!A)
'ose Neo, an employee o& the ;AR, testi&ied that he did not in any %ay participate
in the preparation o& the document presented in evidence) Be did not 6no%
%hether it is genuine or a tampered one)
-n the other hand, de&endants in both cases claim that plainti&&s Presentacion
Molar and Nacarias -arde are not tenant7tillers o& the land in question)
5asilio Molar, a %itness &or the de&endants testi&ied that Atty) Eil&redo Iuerrero
o%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 5asilio
Molar) Presentacion Molar and Nacarias -arde are only helpers) 1rom the share o&
the tenant7tiller 1rancisco Molar, Presentacion and Nacarias get their share)
Another %itness %as Ernesto Nares) Be %as one o& the buyers o& the property
together %ith Rogelio Molar)
-n cross7e,amination he stated that Nacarias -arde and Presentacion Molar are
not tillers o& any land, %hether coconut or riceland @p) 4, tsn, Nov) 8, !9!A)
Rogelio Molar and de&endant Eil&redo Iuerrero li6e%ise too6 the %itness stand but
their testimony centered on the denials that Presentacion Molar and Nacarias
-arde are tenants o& the land)F
Dhe trial court held that Petitioners Molar and -arde %ere not la%&ul tenants o& private
respondents) As noted above, public respondent a&&irmed the trial courtHs ruling in regard to
Petitioner Molar, but reversed it %ith respect to Petitioner -arde) 0t ordered the reinstatement
o& -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 the
o&&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 @sicA substantial &acts, the
testimonial evidence and admissions that greatly a&&ected the result o& this case)
000) Dhe appellate court erred in not applying the provsions @sicA o& the Ne%
CARP#<$ 2a% @RA 44:<A and other applicable la%s and =urisprudence &avorable to
tenant7tiller, Presentacion Molar)
0() Dhe appellate court erred in not computing correctly the total share that
Nacarias -arde %as deprived o& since -ctober !9< to the present)
() Dhe appellate court erred in not a%arding actual damages, attorneyHs &ees,
litigation e,penses, moral and e,emplary 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 tilled
land &rom -ctober !9< to May !! correctO
8) Are petitioners entitled to moral and e,emplary damages as %ell as attorneyHs &ees and
litigation e,pensesO
The Courts Ruli!
The a""eal has o #erit.
First Issue: Is $etitioer %olar a
2a%&ul Denant7DillerO
Dhe essential requisites o& a tenancy relationship are the &ollo%ing. @A the parties are the
lando%ner and the tenant> @2A the sub=ect is agricultural land> @8A there is consent> @3A the
purpose is agricultural production> @:A there is personal cultivation> and @4A there is sharing
o& harvests) All these must concur to establish the =uridical relationship o& tenancy)#9$
Mar6edly absent in the case o& Petitioner Molar is the element o& LpersonalF cultivation) 5oth
the trial court and the Court o& Appeals &ound that Molar hersel& did not actually cultivate the
land, nor did her immediate &amily or &arm household) 0nstead, she hired other people to do
all 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 respondent
aptly 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 tilling
the property %ay bac6 in !4: @tsn, 'uly , !9!A) Bo%ever, the element o&
personal cultivation is essential &or an agricultural leasehold> that is, that there
should be personal cultivation by the tenant or by his immediate &arm household
or members o& the &amily o& the lessee or other persons %ho are dependent upon
him &or support or %ho usually help him in his activities @Evangelista vs) CA, :9
+CRA 3A) Dhe la% is e,plicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate &amily to
%or6 the land @5oni&acio vs) ;i*on, << +CRA 2!3A, and the lessee cannot hire
many persons to help him cultivate the land @;e 'esus vs) 0AC, <: +CRA ::!A)
0n this case, Nacarias -arde, testi&ying &or Presentacion Molar, @tsn, May 4, !9!A
declared that Presentacion Gdoes not actually till the land but she pays laborers to
till the landH @p) 2A> she is single, o%ns no %or6ing animals, nor &arm implements
@p) !A) Presentacion hersel& admitted that she has Gthe property tenanted on
pa6ya% basisH meaning that she hires di&&erent persons &or harro%ing, &or plo%ing,
and &or harvesting and that she did not actually till the land, but merely pays
others Gbecause @0A am a %omanH> she o%ns a small store @tsn, 'uly , !9!, pp)
47!A)
Ee agree %ith the trial court that Ee cannot have a case %here a landlord is
divested o& his landholding and somebody else is installed to become a ne%
landlord)F @Cnderscoring supplied)A
Ee stress that both the respondent appellate court and the trial court &ound that Petitioner
Molar %as not a tenant o& Private Respondent Eil&redo Iuerrero) Petitioners are in e&&ect
as6ing this Court to assess the evidentiary basis o& the &oregoing &actual conclusion) Dhis %e
cannot do) 0n 1uentes vs) Court o& Appeals,#2$ %e e,plained that only questions o& la% could
be raised in a petition &or revie% on certiorari under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court.
8'urisprudence teaches us that G@aAs a rule, the =urisdiction o& this Court in cases
brought to it &rom the Court o& Appeals , , , is limited to the revie% and revision
o& errors o& la% allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its &indings o& &act
are deemed conclusive) As such this Court is not duty7bound to analy*e and %eigh
all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings belo%) Dhis rule,
ho%ever, is not %ithout e,ceptions)H#8$ Dhe &indings o& &act o& the Court o&
Appeals, %hich are as a general rule deemed conclusive, may admit o& revie% by
this Court.#3$
@A %hen the &actual &indings o& the Court o& Appeals and the trial court are
contradictory>
@2A %hen the &indings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or con=ectures>
@8A %hen the in&erence made by the Court o& Appeals &rom its &indings o& &act is
mani&estly mista6en, absurd, or impossible>
@3A %hen there is grave abuse o& discretion in the appreciation o& &acts>
@:A %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>
@4A %hen the =udgment o& the Court o& Appeals is premised on a misapprehension o&
&acts>
@<A %hen the Court o& Appeals &ails to notice certain relevant &acts %hich, i& properly
considered, %ill =usti&y a di&&erent conclusion>
@9A %hen the &indings o& &act are themselves con&licting>
@!A %hen the &indings o& &act are conclusions %ithout citation o& the speci&ic evidence on
%hich they are based> and
@"A %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
Ehether Petitioner Molar %as a tenant7tiller is a question o& &act) Molar has not sho%n that
her case &alls under any o& the recogni*ed e,ceptions to the ironclad rule that only questions
o& 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 e,hibits to support her
claim that she %as a tenant.
8E,hibit A +ummary 2ist o& Rice and Corn 2ands
A7 +ignature o& de&endant Rogelio Molar
A72 +ignature o& the 5arangay Captain
A78 +ignature o& the President, +amahang Nayon
5 Addendum 0nde, 2og +heet
57 2ot < P 9
C Police 5lotter re. complaint o& plainti&&s7appellants
C7 +ignature o& 'ose +egovia, Deam 2eader 0, ;AR
; Parcellary Map#p$ing +heet
E 2etter o& Atty) 2ladoc o& ;AR to the +tation Commander, Camalig,
Albay
I ;AR letter to parties re. Mediation Con&erence)F
+he adds that she Lhas been a registered tenant7tiller o& 2ot since !<<F#4$ as evidenced
by certi&ications &rom a team leader o& the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm @;ARA) Dhese
documents, she argues, sho% that she %as a tenant o& the land in question because L&actual
&indings o& administrative agencies are entitled to great respect and even accorded
&inality)F#<$ Petitioner Molar prays that %e give credence to these documents in her &avor, in
the same %ay that the Respondent Court did in &avor o& Petitioner -arde) +he also contends
that ;on Pepe Benson Enterprises vs) Pangilinan#9$ is Lon all &oursF %ith the present
controversy, speci&ically citing the &ollo%ing pronouncement o& the Court therein.
8Ee also note that private respondents have already been listed as &armer
bene&iciaries o& the 2and Drans&er program o& the government, as certi&ied by the
Deam -&&ice o& the Ministry o& Agrarian Re&orm) Dhis &act rea&&irms the conclusion
o& tenancy reached in this case, and strengthens our vie% that these tillers o& the
soil are to be respected in the cultivation o& their landholdings)F
Ee are not impressed by petitionerHs reliance on numerous certi&ications o&
administrative agencies that she %as a tenant o& 2ot ) Assessing the evidence in
hand, both lo%er courts concluded that Petitioner Molar %as not a tenant) Dhe
certi&ications issued by administrative agencies or o&&icers that a certain person is a
tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts, as ruled by this Court
in CuaMo vs) Court o& Appeals,#!$ citing Puertollano vs) 0AC#2"$
L+econdly, the certi&ication issued by Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo o& the MAR @Ministry o&
Agrarian Re&ormA is very much li6e the certi&ications issued by the +ecretary o&
Agrarian Re&orm and other o&&icials o& the Ministry and later the ;epartment o&
Agrarian Re&orm concerning the e,istence o& tenancy relationships in respect o&
agricultural lands &rom %hich persons, %ho claim to be tenants, are sought 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
concerning the presence or absence o& a tenancy relationship bet%een the
contending parties is merely preliminary or provisional and is not binding upon the
courts) Dhus, in Puertollano, et al) v) Bon) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, et al), this
Court held that.
G1rom the &oregoing provisions o& the la% #+ection 2 P);) No) 84 and +ection 2 P);) No)
"89$, it is clear that the trial court cannot ta6e cogni*ance o& any e=ectment case or any
other case designed to harass or remove a tenant in an agricultural land primarily devoted to
rice and corn %ithout &irst re&erring the same to the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm or his
authori*ed representative in the locality &or a preliminary determination o& the relationship
bet%een the contending parties) 0& said o&&icer &inds that the case is proper &or determination
by the court it shall so certi&y and thence said court may assume =urisdiction over the dispute
or controversy) +uch preliminary determination o& the relationship ho%ever, is not binding
upon the court) +aid court may a&ter due hearing con&irm, reverse or modi&y said preliminary
determination as the evidence and substantial merit o& the case may %arrant) @Emphasis
suppliedAF
1urthermore, these documents %ere based merely on bare e, parte allegations o& di&&erent
persons)#2$ Even %orse, MolarHs o%n %itness, 'ose Neo, Lan employee o& ;AR,F testi&ied that
Lhe did not in any %ay participate in the preparation o& the document presented in
evidence)F#22$
0n ;on Pepe Benson Enterprises, cited by petitioners, the conclusion o& this Court on the
e,istence o& a tenancy relationship %as based on the evidence presented be&ore the trial
court and not on the certi&ications issued by the ;AR> said certi&ications merely Lrea&&irm#ed$F
and Lstrengthen#ed$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 that
she %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:<#28$
2) +ection "4, P; :2!#23$
8) +ection ", RA 8933#2:$
3) +ection !, RA !! as Amended by RA 2248#24$
:) +ection 3, P; :98#2<$
4) +ection 2, RA 489!F#29$
Dhe &oregoing provisions enumerate the bene&its available to a tenant) Presentation Molar
cannot 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) Be
claims it should be P8,9:")"", not P:,9"")"", representing Lthe loss o& <" cavans o& palay
&or the period -ctober !9< to May !! @&iling o& 5rie&A priced at P!:)"" #each$ or a total
o& P8,9:")"", corresponding to seven @<A harvest seasons &or three and one7hal& years @8
?2A counted &rom -ctober !9< to May !!)F#2!$
Ee are not convinced) A party is entitled to adequate compensation only &or duly proved
pecuniary loss actually su&&ered by him or her) +uch damages, to be recoverable, must not
only be capable o& proo&, but must actually be proved %ith a reasonable degree o& certainty)
;amages cannot be presumed or premised on con=ecture or even logic) 0n ma6ing an a%ard,
courts must point out speci&ic &acts %hich sho% a basis &or the amount o& compensatory or
actual damages)#8"$ Dhe claim o& <" cavans o& palay is based on the unsubstantiated
allegation that the sub=ect riceland yielded t%o harvests a year) Ee need only to quote the
&inding o& the appellate court to sho% the &olly o& -ardeHs peroration on this point.#8$
80n their brie&, the plainti&&7appellant -arde see6s actual damages corresponding to
the loss he su&&ered &or &ailing to get his share o& the produce since -ctober !9< 7
alleging that his average share is " cavanes) Melicia -arde testi&ied that since
-ctober !9<, they %ere not able to get their share o& the produce, averaging "
cavanes o& palay @a&ter deducting the lando%nerHs shareA &or the third planting
season @tsn, ;ec) !, !99, p) 9A) Dhere is no other credible evidence o& record
pertinent to the claim o& pecuniary loss o& <" cavanes based on the alleged
prevailing price o& P93)"" to P!<)"" per cavan o& palay) Accordingly, the a%ard
&or actual damages on the basis o& the unla%&ul dispossession by the vendee
de&endants Rogelio and (ilma Molar is calculated at 8" cavanes at the average
price o& P!:)"" prevailing at that time @not disputed by appelleeA or P:,:9")"")F
Dhird 0ssue. ;amages, 2itigation Costs and AttorneyHs 1ees
Petitioners plead that they %ere Ldispossessed o& their landholdingF and Lcompelled to litigate
and incur e,penses in the prosecution o& this suit,F %hich entitle them to attorneyHs &ees
under Article 22"9#82$ o& the Civil Code) 1urther, they also pray &or an a%ard o& P4,""")"" as
Lactual e,pensesF and the additional amount o& P3,""")"" %hich they incurred in this appeal)
Petitioners claim P",""")"" as moral damages &or their Leconomic, physical and emotional
su&&eringsF %hich %ere the Linevitable and pro,imate result o& their being ousted &rom the
land %ithout any =usti&iable cause)F Dhey leave to the sound discretion o& this Court their
claim &or e,emplary or corrective damages)#88$
Respondent Court denied the claims &or Lmoral and e,emplary damages and attorneyHs &ees ,
, , &or lac6 o& legal and?or &actual basis)F#83$ Ee &ind no error in such ruling)
Dhe a%ard o& attorneyHs &ees depends upon the circumstances o& each case and lies %ithin the
discretion o& the court) Ee scoured the records and, li6e the Court o& Appeals, &ound no legal,
&actual or equitable =usti&ication &or the a%ard o& attorneyHs &ees)
2i6e%ise, %e deny the claim &or moral and e,emplary damages) Aside &rom the na6ed
allegations o& physical and emotional su&&erings, petitioners &ailed to substantiate their claims)
2i6e%ise, e,emplary damages are imposed not to enrich one party or impoverish another, but
to serve as a deterrent against or as a negative incentive to socially deleterious actions) 0n
this case, no harm&ul act can be attributed to the private respondents %hich %arrants the
a%ard o& e,emplary damages)
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DE&IED) Dhe assailed DECISIO& is 'FFIR%ED in
toto) 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) <!<:, pp) 2437244)
#:$ Rollo, pp) 278)
#4$ 0bid), pp) 9979!)
#<$ Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm Program)
#9$ +intos vs) Court o& Appeals, 234 +CRA 228, 22<, 'uly 3, !!:> Castillo vs) Court o&
Appeals, 2": +CRA :2!, 'anuary 2<, !!2)
#!$ ;e Iu*man vs) +antos, 4 +CRA <!:, November 8", !42)
#"$ CA ;ecision, p) 4> Rollo, p) 23)
#$ 0bid), pp) 47<> Rollo, pp) 2372:)
#2$ I)R) No) "!93!, pp) :79, 1ebruary 24, !!<, per Panganiban, ')
#8$ Ia% vs) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, 22" +CRA 3":, 38, March 23, !!8> citing
Morales vs) Court o& Appeals, !< +CRA 8!, May 28, !!, and Navarra vs) Court o&
Appeals, 2"3 +CRA 9:", ;ecember <, !!)
#3$ Reyes vs) Court o& Appeals, I)R) No) "2"<, p) 9, 'uly , !!4, (da) de Alcantara vs)
Court o& Appeals, 2:2 +CRA 3:<, 349, 'anuary 2!, !!4, Quebral vs) Court o& Appeals, 2:2
+CRA 8:8, 849, 'anuary 2:, !!4 @citing Calde vs) Court o& Appeals, 288 +CRA 8<4, 'une 2<,
!!3) +ee also Cayabyab vs) Dhe Bonorable 0ntermediate Appellate Court, 282 +CRA , April
29, !!3A, Engineering P Machinery Corporation vs) Court o& Appeals, 2:2 +CRA :4, 48,
'anuary 23, !!4, Chua Diong Day vs) Court o& Appeals, 238 +CRA 98, 94, March 8, !!:,
;ee vs) Court o& Appeals, 289 +CRA 2:3, 248, November 2, !!3, and Asia 5re%ery, 0nc)
vs) Court o& Appeals, 223 +CRA 38<, 338)
#:$ Paragraph 2, +ection 2, Rule 3:, Rules o& Court)
#4$ Petition, p) :> Rollo, p) :)
#<$ PetitionersH Memorandum, p) 8> Rollo, p) <")
#9$ 4 +CRA 49<, 4!8, May 8, !99)
#!$ 28< +CRA 22, 8<789, +eptember 24, !!3, per 1eliciano, ')
#2"$ :4 +CRA 99 @!9<A)
#2$ An e,ample is the Certi&ication o& 'ose M) +egovia @-riginal records o& Civil Case No)
<!<:, p) 2"8A.
LDhis is to certi&y that based on the certi&ied ,ero, copies o& -2D 1orm 27 addendum inde,
logsheet &rom the 5ureau o& 2ands records, PRE+ENDAC0-N M-2AR o& Iotob, Camalig, Albay
is the identi&ied tenant under the landholding o& Eil&redo Iuerrero, situated at Dagaytay,
Camalig, Albay &or %hich he %as identi&ied under lot no) PM+ "3")F
#22$ -riginal records o& Civil Case No) <!<:, p) 244> trial courtHs decision, p) 8)
#28$ L+ection 4) Retention 2imits) 77 , , ,
Cpon the e&&ectivity o& this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or trans&er
o& possession o& private lands e,ecuted by the original lando%ner in violation o& this Act shall
be null and void> Provided, ho%ever, Dhat those e,ecuted prior to this Act shall be valid only
%hen registered %ith the Registrar o& ;eeds %ithin a period o& three @8A months a&ter the
e&&ectivity o& this Act) Dherea&ter, all Registers o& ;eeds shall in&orm the ;AR %ithin thirty
@8"A days o& any transaction involving agricultural lands in e,cess o& &ive @:A hectares)F
#23$ L+ection "4) +ale o& agricultural land> a&&idavit) 77 No voluntary deed or instrument
purporting to be a subdivision, mortgage, lease, sale or any other mode o& encumbrance or
conveyance o& private agricultural land principally devoted to rice or corn or any portion
thereo& shall be registered unless accompanied by an a&&idavit o& the vendor or e,ecutor
stating that the land involved is not tenanted, or i& tenanted, the same is not primarily
devoted 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, and
such area so devoted is tenanted, no such deed or instrument shall be registered unless
accompanied by an a&&idavit stating the area @si*eA o& the portion %hich is tenanted and
primarily devoted to rice and?or corn, and stating &urther that the deed or instrument covers
only the untenanted portion or that %hich is not primarily devoted to the production o& rice
and?or corn) A memorandum o& said a&&idavit shall be annotated on the certi&icate o& title) Dhe
Register o& ;eeds shall cause a copy o& the registered deed or instrument, together %ith the
a&&idavit, to be &urnished the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm Regional -&&ice %here the land is
located) 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& 2and Drans&er or Emancipation Patent in accordance
%ith la%)F
#2:$ L+ection ") Agricultural 2easehold Relation Not E,tinguished by E,piration o& Period,
etc) 77 Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be e,tinguished by mere
e,piration 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 the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or
trans&ers the legal possession o& the landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)F
#24$ , , , Dhe e,piration o& the period o& the contract as &i,ed by the parties, or o& the sale,
alienation or trans&er o& legal possession o& the land does not o& itsel& e,tinguish the
relationship) 0n the latter case, the purchaser or trans&eree shall assume the rights and
obligations o& the &ormer landholder in relation to the tenant) 0n case o& death o& the
landholder, his heir or heirs shall li6e%ise assume his rights and obligations)H @0talics
suppliedA)F
#2<$ L+ection 3) Cnless previously authori*ed by the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm, any land7
o%ner %ho converts his tenanted land primarily devoted to rice and corn into any non7
agricultural use or to the production o& any other crop as a means to avoid the application o&
the land re&orm la%s or decrees to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant7&armers o&
the land tilled by them shall, upon conviction, su&&er the penalty o& prision mayor or a &ine
ranging &rom P:,""")"" to P",""")"", or both, at the discretion o& the court)
Dhe same penalty shall be imposed on a lando%ner %ho by any other act, scheme or strategy
shall e=ect, e,clude, remove or oust and?or cause the ouster, e,clusion, removal or e=ectment
o& a tenant7&armer &rom his &arm7holding in contravention o& decrees, la%s, and other orders
on land re&orm)F
#29$ L+ection 2) 2esseeHs Right o& redemption) 77 0n case the landholding is sold to a third
%ithout the 6no%ledge o& the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the
same at a reasonable price and consideration> Provided, Dhat %here there are t%o or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right o& redemption onlt to e,tent o& the
area actually cultivated by him) Dhe right o& redemption under this +ection may be e,ercised
%ithin one hundred eighty days &rom notice in %riting %hich shall be served by the vendee on
all lessees a&&ected and the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm upon the registration o& the sale,
and shall have priority over any other right o& legal redemption price shall be the reasonable
price o& the land at the time o& the sale)
Cpon the &iling o& the corresponding petition or request %ith the department or corresponding
case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period o& one hundred and eighty
days shall cease to run)
,,,F
#2!$ Petition, p) > Rollo, p) 2)
#8"$ ;el Mundo vs) Court o& Appeals, 23" +CRA 839, 8:4, 'anuary 2", !!: citing Article
2!!, Civil Code o& the Philippines> Re&ractories Corporation vs) 0ntermediate Appellate Court,
<4 +CRA :8!> 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 e,penses o& litigation, other
than =udicial costs, cannot be recovered, e,cept.
,,, ,,, ,,,
@2A Ehen the de&endantHs act or omission has compelled the plainti&& to litigate %ith third
persons or to incur e,penses 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 41
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616292"%
+EC-N; ;0(0+0-N
# I)R) No) 278<<84, 1ebruary 28, !99 $
AND-N0- E(ANIE20+DA K 20+0NI, PED0D0-NER, (+) DBE C-CRD -1 APPEA2+, 2CN
CA+DANE;A AN; BE0R+ -1 5ENE;0CD- +ANCBEN, RE+P-N;END+)
; E C 0 + 0 - N
$'DI((', J.:
Dhis is a petition to revie% on certiorari the decisionR o& the Court o& Appeals, dated 2
August !<8, in CA I)R) No) """887R, entitled $%ntonio &vangelista, plaintiff'appellee, vs.
(u) Castaneda, et al., defendants'appellants$ %hich reversed the decisionRR o& the Court o&
Agrarian Relations, dated 2! -ctober !<", in CAR Case No) 9275ulacan '4:, %hich &ound
petitioner to be an agricultural lessee o& the landholding o& the private respondents)
Rosario Mendo*a +anche* @+anche*, &or shortA, the private respondents' predecessor7in7
interest, %as the o%ner o& a parcel o& land %ith an area o& : hectares, more or less, situated
at 2ugam, Malolos, 5ulacan, covered by Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle no) 49<" o& the 2and
Records o& 5ulacan)
-n 23 May !4:, the petitioner &iled a complaint &or reinstatement, %ith damages, in the
Court o& Agrarian Relations @CARA in 5ulacan against +anche* and 1elipe ;omingo, on the
strength o& his claim that he %as the occupant o& the landholding o& +anche*)
0n his complaint, petitioner alleged that since !:8, he %as the tenant o& +anche* over the
a&oresaid landholding, until he %as illegally e=ected &rom the same on : April !4:, &or
having in&ormed +anche* o& his desire to &i, the amount o& the rental in accordance %ith
Republic Act No) 8933 as amended, other%ise 6no%n as the 2and Re&orm Code#$)
Dhe private respondents denied the alleged &orcible eviction o& the petitioner &rom the
landholding) Dhey claimed that petitioner occupied the land in question as a lessee under a
contract o& civil lease, and not as an agricultural lessee under Republic Act No) 8933, as
amended> and that he @petitionerA voluntarily surrendered the land to them @private
respondentsA sometime in March, !4:#2$)
Dhe de&ense o& the private respondents %as anchored on three @8A %ritten contracts e,ecuted
by +anche* and the petitioner, one entitled /Sasulatang -ption/#8$ and the other t%o,
/Sasulatan ng 5u%isan/#3$)
Dhe contract entitled /Sasulatang -ption/, e,ecuted on 3 'une !:4, contained the &ollo%ing
terms and conditions.
"%*+(%,%N- $O.,ION$
#%(%#%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 lalong
ma1i1ilala 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 ;<94';<96=
Na dahil at alang'alang sa halagang .>,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 nasabing
pang1at na lupa. %ng panibagong 1asunduan sa bu:isan a3 gaga:in namin sa bu:an ng
&nero, ;<96=
Na ang halagang .>,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 ;>@.
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, ;<94.$
,he period of the aforesaid agreement :as from ;A June ;<94 until the agricultural 3ear
;<94'96. .ursuant to said agreement, the petitioner :as given b3 *anche) the option to
rene: the lease of the land in Buestion in Januar3, ;<96 in consideration of the sum of
.>,777.77C9D.
On ;E Februar3 ;<47, petitioner and *anche) e8ecuted a $"asulatan ng !u:isan$C4D, :hich
contained the follo:ing terms and conditions0
"%*+(%,%N N- !+FI*%N
#%(%#%N N%N- (%/%,0
Na a1ong si RO*%RIO #&NO2%, .ilipina, ma3 sapat na gulang, asa:a ni Juan *anche), at
nananahanan sa Calumpit, !ulacan, na sa 1asulatang ito a3 tata:agin ding Nagpapabu:is,
a3 tuna3 at tanging ma3'ari ng isang laga3 na lupa nasa na3ong (ugam, #alolos, !ulacan, at
na1atala alinsunod sa ,ransfer Certificate of ,itle No. ,'4567 ng Register of eeds for
!ulacan, at ang mga hanggahan at ta1al a3 ga3a nang mga sumusunod0
88 8 8 8 8 8$
Na dahil at alangalang sa halagang I*%N- %%N (;77) 1abang pala3 1auri ng inani sa nasa'
bing lupa ba:at taon, bilang upa o bu:is na ibibiga3 sa a1in ni %ntonio &vangelista, .ilipino,
ma3 sapat na gulang, binata at naninirahan sa na3on nang (ugam, #alolos, !ulacan, na sa
1asulatang ito a3 tata:agin ding Namumu:isan, a3 a1ing inililipat, isinasalin at
pinabubu:isan sa nasabing namumu:isan ang isang bahagi nang lupang sa itaas a3
binabanggit na ma3 su1at na limang (9) he1tarea, humigit, 1umulang, at ang hanggahan a3
itong mga sumusunod0
$8 8 8 8 8 8$
%ng mga 1asunduan at pasubali ng bu:isan ito a3 ang mga sumusunod0
1. TANING NANG BUWISAN; Tatlong (3) taon na sisimulan sa taong anihang ito, 19601961, at
matata!os sa taong anihan 196"1963, #u$an ng %&#'&'o, ngunit ang Namumu$isan a( ma(
!angunang )a'a!atan (o!tion) #ata( sa )an(ang laga), u!ang mag!atulo( ng !amumu$isan,
)ung ang lu!a a( !a#u#u$isan !a;
". %AGBABA*A+ NG BUWIS; Ang 100 )a#ang !ala( na #u$is a( i#i#iga( nang Namumu$isan sa
nag!a!a#u$is !ag)ata!os nang !aggii), ngunit ang !ag#a#a(a, a( hin,i lalam!as ang %&#'&'o
nang #a$at taon nang !amumu$isan.
3. -AGA./ Ang laga) nang Namumu$isan a( %",000.00 na $alang !atu#o, na ito1( nananagutan
)ung hin,i ma)atu!a, ang Namumu$isan sa )ani(ang mga tung)ulin sa ilalim nang )asun,uang
ito, at ang hin,i !ag)a)asaoli nang laga) na ito, a( hin,i magiging ,ahilan nang hin,i !ag)a
ta!os nang #u$isan;
2. 34567A/ Tung)ulin nang Namumu$isan na si)a!in at alagaang ma#uti ang lu!ang #inu#u
$isan at isaoli sa Nag!a!a#u$is !ag)ata!os nang #u$isan, at ii$anang lahat ang m&8o'ang
ilaga( ni(a at ,ito1( $ala si(ang )a'a!atang humingi o sumingil nang ano man.
0. %ATUBIG AT BUWIS SA %A3A9A-AAN/ Ang !atu#ig a( #a#a(a'an nang Namumu$isan ang
,ala$a sa tatlong #ahagi (":3) at ang i)atlo (1:3) a( ang Nag!a!a#u$is.
6. %AGSASA.A/ Ang !amumu$isang ito a( hin,i ,a!at na i!a)ahulugan nang sino mang magsa)a
sa lu!a sa !anahon nang !amumu$isan a( naging )asama nang Nag!a!a#u$is, )a(a, !ag)a
ta!os nang #u$isan, ang !os&;ion a( isasaoli nang Namumu$isan sa Nag!a!a#u$is at si(a o
sino man a( $alang ano mang !aghaha#ol sa !agsasa)a;
<. %AG%A%ATA-A/ .ung sa)ali=t i!atatala sa 7&gist&' o> +&&,s ang )asulatang ito, ang gugol a( sa
Namumu$isan at ang )asulatan na 'ing ito ang magiging sa!at na !a#ala sa 7&gist&' o> +&&,s,
!ag)ata!os nang #u$isang ito, u!ang !a$alang #isa ang !ag)a)atala sa titulo nang lu!a (;an;&l
on in;um#'an;& on th& titl&) ?si;@.
Na a1ong si %ntonio &vangelista, ang Namumu:isan sa itaas na nababanggit, a3 sanga3on
sa lahat nang mababasa sa itaas at 1atuna3an linagdaan namin ito sa Calumpit, !ulacan,
nga3ong ;Eth ng .ebrero, ;<47, sa harap nang dala:ang sa1si sa 1asulatan$.
On ;; *eptember ;<4E, petitioner and *anche) e8ecuted a ne: $"asulatan ng
!u:isan$C6D :hich provided for the same terms and conditions stated in their
previous $"asulatan ng !u:isan$, dated ;E Februar3 ;<47, e8cept as to the period of the
contract and the amounts of rental and deposit. ,he contract :as for a period of one
agricultural 3ear, ;<4E'4A, and e8pired on Februar3, ;<4A. ,he rental for the use of the
landholding :as reduced to <7 cavans of pala3 a 3ear. %nd petitioner deposited :ith *anche)
the sum of .>,>97.77 :ithout interest, :hich :as to be returned to the petitioner after the
period of the contract shall have e8pired.
On E7 #arch ;<49, follo:ing the e8piration of the period provided in the last $"asulatan ng
!u:isan$ e8ecuted b3 petitioner and *anche), the latter e8ecuted another $"asulatan ng
!u:isan$C5D over the land in Buestion, effective for the agricultural 3ear ;<49'44, :ith Felipe
omingo.
/ence, the filing b3 petitioner of the action in the Court of %grarian Relations :hich, after
hearing, rendered Gudgment, the dispositive part of :hich reads0
/EBERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered.
) ;eclaring the plainti&& to be the agricultural lessee on the land in question
%ith an area o& : hectares mmore or less, situated at 2ugam, Malolos,
5ulacan>
2) -rdering the de&endant 1elipe ;omingo to vacate said landholding and
surrender the possession thereo& to the plainti&&>
8) -rdering de&endants 2u* +) Castaneda and 5enedicto +anche* to reinstate
the 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& the
property in !:3, it %as by virtue o& a lease contract %hich he admitted %as given
to him by the late Rosario Mendo*a, but that he lost the same @pp) :7<, tsn,
;ec) :, !:4A, %hich %as &or a term o& 8 years and this is con&irmed by E,h) C or
8, titled /SA+C2ADANI -PD0-N/ under a proviso %hich states 7
$Na sa lupang nabanggit a3 lima (9) hectarea a3 nasa bu:isan sa
1asalu1u3an 1a3 %ntonio &vangelista, .ilipino, ma3 sapat na gulang,
binata, at nananahan sa (ugam, #alolos, !ulacan, na matatapos sa
taong anihan ;<94';<96=$
82) Dhat the t%o most important conditions o& the lease agreement %hich %as
rene%ed by both the appellee Antonio Evangelista as the lessee, and the late
Rosario Mendo*a, as sho%n by E,hibit A or , titled /SA+C2ADANI 5CE0+AN/, are
as &ollo%s
88) (%-%"0 %ng laga1 ng Namumu:isan a3 .>,977.777 na :alang
patubo, na ito?3 nanagutan 1ung hindi ma1atupad ang Namumu:isan
sa 1ani3ang mga tung1ulin ng 1asunduang ito, a3 hindi magiging
dahilan ng hindi pag1atapos nang bu:isan=
, , , ,
/4) .%-*%*%"%0 %ng Namumu:isang ito a3 hindi dapat na ipa1ahulugan nang
sino mang magsa1a sa lupa sa panahon nang pamumu:isan a3 naging 1asama
nang Nagpapabu:is, 1a3a pag1atapos nang bu:isan ang posecion a3 isasaoli
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 portion
o& the said %ritten agreement 7
$Na a1ong si %ntonio &vangelista, ang Namumu:isan sa itaas na
nabanggit, a3 sanga3on sa lahat nang mababasa sa itaas at 1atuna3an
linagdaan namin ito sa Calumpit, !ulacan, nga3ong i1a';E ng .ebrero,
;<47, sa harap ng dala:ang sa1si sa 1asulatan.$
/3) Dhat this lease agreement %as again rene%ed as sho%n by E,hibits 5 or 2,
incorporating the same above7stated conditions, and that all these questioned
lease agreements %ere all duly ac6no%ledged be&ore a Notary Public> and %ere
%orded in Dagalog the dialect prevailing in 5ulacan province, and is there&ore
clearly understood by the appellee Antonio Evangelista>
/:) Dhat even prior to !:3 %hen appellee &irst too6 possession o& the landholding
in question, the same has been previously leased to one Macario ;omingo,
%aybac6 in !3:, as disclosed by E,h) 475, %hich is an annotation at the bac6 o&
the title o& the questioned property, and such lease agreement %as &inally
cancelled only in !:3, E,h) 47C, all o& %hich are &ound in E,hibit 47A, at the lapse
o& %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 e,pired in March, !:3, and the appellee too6 over &rom
him 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 7
'ose Albania, Crbano 2ope* and Pablo Caluag @tsn) pp) <724, ;ec) !, !4!A>
/4) Dhat the appellee's original status, there&ore in !:3 %as that o& a lessee, is
also con&irmed by his o%n E,hibit ;, captioned /Patalastas/, the pertinent parts o&
%hich read 7
C-N;0+0-N +A PARD0BAN NI AN0.
!u:isan ng <7 cavans isang taon.
, , , , ,
/@A .agbabago ng pagsasamahan na ang dati na !uisan a3 mahalinhan ng
samahang !uisan na bata3 sa batasHF
, , , , ,
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, Nicolas
Maclang, admitted that herein appellee used to hire many plo%ers, harro%ers and
planters and also &arm laborers, %ho are paid by him @tsn, pp) 4"742, +ept) 24,
!4!A> that he himsel& helped the appellee %or6ed on the land &or 8 years @tsn), p)
:8, idA
L<) Dhat the herein appellee Antonio Evangelista is a Rice ;ealer, %ith a total net
%orth o& about P<,2)", as sho%n clearly by a /Pro&it and 2oss +tatement/,
@E,h) 3A duly attested by a Certi&ied Public Accountant, e,ecuted in appellee's
&avor by a la% and accounting &irm o& +antos A) Avenir P Associates, on 'anuary
22, !48>
L9) Dhat he is the o%ner o& t%o @2A duly licensed guns 7 namely 7 -ne @A )22 Cal)
Ri&le> and one @A )22 Cal) Revolver, as sho%n by E,hs) 372and 37; @sicA>
L!) Dhat there is no e,press provisions o& any e,isting la%, particularly under
Republic Act !!, as amended, or under Republic Act 8933, as amended,
other%ise 6no%n as the 2and Re&orm Code, %hich prohibits the parties &rom
entering into a contract o& civil lease o& an agricultural land, under the Ne% Civil
Code, &or a limited period o& time, as in &act this latter la%, Republic Act 8933, as
amended, impliedly recogni*es the e,istence o& a civil la% lessee, as this is
distinguished &rom an agricultural lessee, as may be &ound under +ec) 44, @2A
%hich reads 7
/@2A /Agricultural lessee/ means a person %ho, by himsel& and %ith the
aid available &rom %ithin his immediate &arm household, cultivates the
land, belonging to, or possessed by another, %ith the latter's consent &or
purposes o& production, &or a price certain in money or in produce or
both) 0t is distinguished &rom civil la% lessee as understood in the Civil
Code o& the Philippines)/
implying in e&&ect that i& the lessee does not personally cultivate the landholding,
the agreement becomes a civil la% lease under the Civil Code)
/") Dhat as may be observed &rom the terms and conditions o& the questioned
lease agreements, particularly under the common conditions &ound in par) @4A
thereo&, the appellee7lessee, is in &act authori*ed to hire plo%ers, harro%ers and
other &arm laborers or %or6ers, but that this does not authori*e them to later on
claim that they are the tenants o& the lessor therein, the late Rosario Mendo*a
+anche*, over the said landholding)/
/Consonant to the &oregoing, it is the considered opinion o& this Court that the
herein appellee Antonio Evangelista, had not %or6ed personally or could @notA have
%or6ed on the landholding in question by himsel&, and %ith the aid o& the members
o& his immediate &arm household, consequently he could not there&ore be
considered either as a share tenant, or a lease7hold tenant, contemplated by
Republic Act !!, as amended, or as an agricultural lessee, as de&ined by
Republic Act 8933, as amended, also 6no%n as the 2and Re&orm Code, %ho is
entitled to a security o& tenure, as provided therein, under and pursuant to the
questioned lease agreements, &or these covenants clearly &all under the provisions
o& the Ne% Civil Code, %hereby one o& the parties, binds himsel& to give to another
the en=oyment or use o& his property &or a price certain, and &or a de&inite period
speci&ied therein) @Art) 438, Ne% Civil CodeA#"$/)
Bence, the petitioner's present recourse to this Court)
Dhe only issue in this case is %hether or not petitioner is an agricultural lessee under Rep) Act
No) 8933, and there&ore entitled to security o& tenure over the landholding, in question, or a
mere civil la% lessee, %ho does not en=oy security o& tenure in the sense that he may be
e=ected &rom the landholding upon the e,piration o& the term provided in the contract o&
lease)
A share tenant @under Rep) Act No) !!A or an agricultural lessee @under Rep) Act No) 8933A
is entitled to security o& tenure over the landholding he %or6s at) Not even the e,piration o&
any term or period &i,ed in the leasehold contract, in the case o& an agricultural lessee, %ill
cause the lessee's e=ectment &rom the land) -n the other hand, a civil lessee, under a
contract o& civil lease#$, does not en=oy security o& tenure over the land ob=ect o& the
contract) A civil lessee can be e=ected &rom the land a&ter the e,piration o& the term provided
&or in the contract)
Dhe &inding o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals that the petitioner %as not a bona fide tenant7
&armer on the land in question, %hich are based on the evidence on record, is &inal and
conclusive#2$) Dhe salient characteristic %hich %ould ma6e the relationship bet%een the
petitioner and +anche* one o& agricultural leasehold, and %hich is personal cultivation by the
petitioner and the immediate members o& his &arm household, is absent in the case at bar) As
cited in the decision o& the respondent court, petitioner's o%n %itness, Nicolas Maclang,
admitted that petitioner used to hire many plo%ers, harro%ers and planters as %ell as &arm
laborers, %ho %ere paid by him, and that he himsel& @MaclangA helped the appellee %or6 on
the land &or 8 years) Even the decision o& the trial court sho%ed that petitioner did not
personally cultivate the land in question) 0t held that.
/Nicolas Maclang declared that he sa% plainti&& @EvangelistaA %or6 on the land in
qeustion &rom !42 to !4:> , , ,> that he (#aclang) helped the plaintiff :or1 the
land in Buestion b3 plo:ing and harro:ing the same for E 3ears under
the su3uan system> that the plainti&& used his 2 carabaos and o%n &arm
implements in the cultivation o& the land in question and that the plaintiff had
other companions in plo:ing and harro:ing the landholding under the suyuan
system @tsn, hearing o& +eptember 24, !4!, pp) 3<74"A) ;e&endant ;omingo
declared that during the time he %as %or6ing the land o& his mother %hich is ad=a7
cent to the land in question, he sa% Nicolas Maclang, Pedro Caparas and 1elipe
5ernardino plo%ing and harro%ing the landholding in question and cleaning the
di6es thereon @tsn), hearing o& 'anuary 9, !<" pp) 22728A#8$)/ #emphasis
supplied$
As held in Carag v. Court of %ppeals#3$, absent the requisite o& personal cultivation, by the
alleged tenant, no tenancy relationship can be said to e,ist bet%een him and the lando%ner)
Bence, the petitioner cannot be said to be an agricultural lessee) Be has not personally or by
his &arm household, cultivated the land in question)
Dhe &act that the contracts o& lease signed by the parties did not stipulate that the
landholding should be personally cultivated by the petitioner and the immediate members o&
his &arm household, indicates the intent o& the parties to establish only a civil lease
relationship)
A person %ho signed &or three consecutive times a contract o& lease @Sasulatang -ption and
Sasulatan ng 5u%isanA, %ith the intent o& establishing a civil lease contract, cannot later be
heard to claim that he is a tenant or an agricultural lessee)
Dhis Court is a%are o& the practice o& many lando%ners, as a %ay o& evading the provisions o&
tenancy la%s, to have their tenants sign contracts or agreements intended to camou&lage the
real import o& their relationship) 5ut in the case at bar, the grounds cited in the decision o&
the respondent court indicate that the contracts entered into %ere bona &ide civil lease in
nature, and that they %ere entered into by the petitioner voluntarily)
WHEREFORE, the petition is ;EN0E;> the decision appealed &rom is A110RME;) Costs
against the petitioner)
SO ORDERED.
Iap, (Chairman), #elencio'/errera, .aras, and *armiento, JJ., concur)
R Penned by 'ustice Emilio A) Iancayco, %ith the concurrence o& 'ustices Ruperto I) Martin
and 2ourdes P) +an ;iego)
RR Penned by 'udge 'ose M) +antos)
#$ ;ecision o& the Court o& Appeals, pp) 72
#2$ 0bid p) 2
#8$ E,hibits C and C7
#3$ E,hibits A, A7 and A72 and 5 and 57
#:$ ;ecision o& the Court o& Agrarian Relations, p) :
#4$ E,hibits A, A7 and A72
#<$ E,hibits /5/ and /5/
#9$ E,hibits < and <7A
#!$ ;ecision o& the Court o& Agrarian Relations, pp) 8:784
#"$ ;ecision o& the Court o& Appeals, pp) 379
#$ Article 438, Civil Code
#2$ Derune* v) 0AC, No) 2742!, 'anuary 8, !9:, 83 +CRA 33
#8$ ;ecision o& the Court o& Agrarian Relations, p) 28
#3$ I)R) No) 27393", 'une 9, !9<

+ource. +upreme Court E72ibrary
Dhis page %as dynamically generated
by the E72ibrary Content Management +ystem @E72ibCM+A
-'+aya vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. ((11),
*ctober 2), 1992 215 SCRA 11%
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&"511
DB0R; ;0(0+0-N
# I)R) No) 998, -ctober 28, !!2 $
+P-C+E+ D0DC+ 2) EN;AKA AN; I2EN;A DR0N0;A;> +P-C+E+ R0C- 2) EN;AKA AN;
NANEDDE AQC0N-> AN; +P-C+E+ '-+EPB0NE 2) EN;AKA AN; 2EAN;R- 5ANDCI,
PED0D0-NER+, (+) C-CRD -1 APPEA2+ AN; PE;R- 10;E20, RE+P-N;END+)
; E C 0 + 0 - N
RO%ERO, J.:
Assailed in this petition &or revie% on certiorari is the decision o& the Court o& Appeals in CA7
I)R) No) :<23 dated April 24, !9!#$ reversing the =udgment o& the Regional Drial Court o&
Danauan, 5atangas @5ranch 4A in Civil Case No) D738"#2$ and holding that private respondent
is an agricultural lessee in the land o& petitioner %hose security o& tenure must be respected
by the latter)
Dhe antecedent &acts are as &ollo%s.
Dhe +pouses Natividad Drinidad and Cesar +an ;iego o%ned a piece o& agricultural land
consisting o& 2",2"" square meters situated at +an Pioquinto, Malvar, 5atangas, devoted to
rice and corn) As &ar bac6 as !83, private respondent 1ideli has been cultivating this land as
a tenant o& the +pouses +an ;iego under a &i&ty7&i&ty @:"7:"A sharing agreement) Dhis &act,
petitioners do not dispute)
-n May 2, !<3, a lease contract %as e,ecuted bet%een the +pouses +an ;iego and one
Regino Cassanova &or a period o& &our years &rom May !<3 up to May !<9)#8$ Dhe lease
contract obliged Cassanova to pay P3"")"" per hectare per annum and gave him the
authority to oversee the planting o& crops on the land)#3$ Private respondent signed this
lease contract as one o& t%o %itnesses)#:$
Dhe lease contract %as subsequently rene%ed to last until May !9" but the rental %as raised
to P4"")"") Again, private respondent signed the contract as %itness)#4$
;uring the entire duration o& the lease contract bet%een the +pouses +an ;iego and
Cassanova, private respondent continuously cultivated the land, sharing equally %ith
Cassanova the net produce o& the harvests)
-n 'anuary 4, !9", the +pouses +an ;iego sold the land to petitioners &or the sum o&
P24,""")"") Dhe sale %as registered %ith the Register o& ;eeds o& 5atangas and a Drans&er
Certi&icate o& Ditle %as duly issued on 'anuary <, !9)#<$ Private respondent continued to
&arm the land although petitioners claim that private respondent %as told immediately a&ter
the sale to vacate the land)#9$ 0n any case, it is undisputed that private respondent
deposited %ith the 2u*on ;evelopment 5an6 an amount o& about P9,""")"" as partial
payment o& the lando%ner's share in the harvests &or the years !9" until !9:)#!$
;ue to petitionersH persistent demand &or private respondent to vacate the land, private
respondent &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 is
not an agricultural lessee o& the land no% o%ned by petitioners) Dhe dispositive portion o& the
RDC decision reads.
/EBERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered dismissing plainti&&'s complaint to be
declared 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 Pedro
1ideli 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!924
Civil Case No) D738" to be %ithdra%n and delivered to the de&endants) No
pronouncement 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 private
respondentHs status as an agricultural lessee and his security o& tenure as such are being
disputed by petitioners)
Petitioners impugn the Court o& AppealsH declaration that private respondent is an agricultural
lessee 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 leasehold
relationship bet%een the +pouses +an ;iego and private respondent, the e,istence o& %hich
petitioners do not dispute, %as thereby terminated) Petitioners argue that a lando%ner
cannot have a civil la% lease contract %ith one person and at the same time have an
agricultural 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 ;iego
and Cassanova, signing as he did the lease agreement and the rene%al contract as %itness
thereo&, private respondent has %aived his rights as an agricultural lessee)
Dhese contentions are %ithout merit)
R)A) No) 8933 @!48A, as amended by R)A) No) 498! @!<A, %hich is the relevant la%
governing the events at hand, abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines &rom !<
and established the agricultural leasehold system by operation o& la%)#$ +ection < o& the
said la% gave agricultural lessees security o& tenure by providing the &ollo%ing. /Dhe
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall con&er upon the agricultural lessee the
right to continue %or6ing on the landholding until such leasehold relation is e,tinguished) Dhe
agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security o& tenure on his landholding and cannot be
e=ected there&rom unless authori*ed by the Court &or causes herein provided)/#2$ Dhe &act
that the lando%ner entered into a civil lease contract over the sub=ect landholding and gave
the lessee the authority to oversee the &arming o& the land, as %as done in this case, is not
among the causes provided by la% &or the e,tinguishment o& the agricultural leasehold
relation)#8$ -n the contrary, +ection " o& the la% provides.
/+ec)
") Agricultural 2easehold Relation Not E,tinguished by E,piration o& Period, etc) 7
Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be e,tinguished by
mere e,piration 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 the
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the legal possession o& the
landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)/
Bence, transactions involving the agricultural land over %hich an agricultural leasehold
subsists resulting in change o& o%nership, e)g), sale, or trans&er o& legal possession, such as
lease, %ill not terminate the rights o& the agricultural lessee %ho is given protection by the
la% by ma6ing such rights en&orceable against the trans&eree or the lando%ner's successor in
interest)#3$
0llustrative o& the legal principles outlined above is Catorce v) Court o& Appeals #:$ %here the
person 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) Cpon
complaint &or reinstatement &iled by the agricultural lessee, the then Court o& Agrarian
Relations ordered the mortgagee to deliver possession over the land to the agricultural lessee
but 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 Melencio7
Berrera, noted, among other considerations, that /tenants are guaranteed security o& tenure,
meaning, the continued en=oyment and possession o& their landholding e,cept %hen their
dispossession had been authori*ed by virtue o& a &inal and e,ecutory =udgment, %hich is not
so 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 bar
is Novesteras v) Court o& Appeals)#<$ Petitioner in said case %as a share tenant o& the
respondent over t%o parcels o& land) Respondent entered into a contract o& civil lease %ith
Rosendo Porculas &or a term o& three years) Porculas did not &arm the land himsel& but le&t it
to petitioner to till the land) A&ter the e,piration o& the lease bet%een respondent and
Porculas, petitioner entered into an agreement denominated as a contract o& civil lease %ith
respondent) -n e,piration o& this lease contract, respondent denied petitioner possession
over the land) Resolving the rights and obligations o& the parties, the Court, through 'ustice
Paras, held that the petitioner therein became an agricultural tenant o& respondent by virtue
o& R)A) No) 8933 @!48A, as amended by R)A) No) 498! @!<A) Dhe lease contract bet%een
the respondent and Porculas did not terminate the agricultural leasehold relationship bet%een
petitioner and respondent) 0& at all, the said lease agreement, coupled by the &act that
Porculas allo%ed petitioner to continue cultivating in his capacity as tenant o& the sub=ect
landholding, served to strengthen petitioner's security o& tenure as an agricultural tenant o&
the &armland in question) Accordingly, the subsequent contract bet%een petitioner and
respondent denominated as a contract o& civil lease %as held by the Court to be in &act an
agricultural leasehold agreement)
Again, in Coconut Cooperative Mar6eting Association, 0nc) @C-C-MAA 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 'ustice
Padilla, summari*ed the rule as &ollo%s.
/Dhere is also no question that, in this case, there %as a trans&er o& the legal
possession o& the land &rom one landholder to another @1ule to petitioner
C-C-MAA) 0n connection there%ith, Republic Act 8933, +ec) " states.
'+EC) ") Agricultural 2easehold Relation Not E,tinguished by E,piration o& Period, etc) 7 Dhe
agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be e,tinguished by mere e,piration 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 the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the
legal possession o& the landholdings, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogated
to the rights and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)'
1urther, in several cases, this Court sustained the preservation o& the landholder7tenant
relationship, in cases o& trans&er o& legal possession.
9, , , in case o& trans&er or in case o& lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy
relationship bet%een the lando%ner and his tenant should be preserved in order to
insure the %ell7being o& the tenant or protect him &rom being un=ustly dispossessed
by 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<:A>
'0t is our considered =udgment, since the return by the lessee o& the leased
property to the lessor upon the e,piration o& the contract involves also a trans&er
o& legal possession, and ta6ing into account the mani&est intent o& the la%ma6ing
body in amending the la%, i)e), to provide the tenant %ith security o& tenure in all
cases o& trans&er o& legal possession, that the instant case &alls %ithin and is
governed by the provisions o& +ection ! o& Republic Act !!, as amended by
Republic Act 2248)' @'oya v) Pare=a, "4 Phil) 43:A)
', , , that the tenant may proceed against the trans&eree o& the land to en&orce
obligation incurred by the &ormer landholder in relation to said land, &or the reason
that such obligation ) ) ) &alls upon the assignee or trans&eree o& the landH pursuant
to +ec) ! abovementioned) +ince respondents are in turn &ree to proceed against
the &ormer landholder &or reimbursement, it is not iniquitous to hold them
responsible to the tenant &or said obligations) Moreover, it is the purpose o&
Republic Act !!, particularly +ec) ! thereo&, to insure that the right o& the tenant
to receive his la%&ul share o& the produce o& the land is unhampered by the
trans&er o& said land &rom one landholder to another)H @Almarine* v) Potenciano, 2"
Phil) :3)A)F#!$
0n the instant case, private respondent has been cultivating the sub=ect &arm landholding %ith
a &i&ty7&i&ty @:"7:"A sharing arrangement %ith the +pouses +an ;iego, petitionersH
predecessors7in7interest) Dhe passage o& R)A) 498! in !<, amending R)A) 8933 @!48A,
secured to private respondent all the rights pertaining to an agricultural lessee) Dhe e,ecution
o& a lease agreement bet%een the +pouses +an ;iego and Regino Cassanova in !<3 did not
terminate private respondent's status as an agricultural lessee) Dhe &act that private
respondent 6ne% o&, and consented to, the said lease contract by signing as %itness to the
agreement may not be construed as a %aiver o& his rights as an agricultural lessee) -n the
contrary, it %as his right to 6no% about the lease contract since, as a result o& the agreement,
he had to deal %ith a ne% person instead o& %ith the o%ners directly as he used to) No
provision may be &ound in the lease contract and the rene%al contract even intimating that
private respondent has %aived his rights as an agricultural lessee) Militating against
petitionersH theory that the agricultural leasehold %as terminated or %aived upon the
e,ecution o& the lease agreement bet%een the +an ;iegos and Cassanova is the &act that the
latter desisted &rom personally cultivating the land but le&t it to private respondent to
underta6e the &arming, the produce o& the land being shared bet%een Cassanova and private
respondent, %hile the &ormer paid P3"")"" and later P4"")"" per hectare per annum to the
+an ;iegos, as agreed upon in the lease contract)
Petitioners, ho%ever, insist that private respondent can no longer be considered the
agricultural lessee o& their &arm land because a&ter they purchased the land &rom the +pouses
+an ;iego in !9", private respondent did not secure their permission to cultivate the land as
agricultural lessee)
0t is true that the Court has ruled that agricultural tenancy is not created %here the consent
o& the true and la%&ul o%ners is absent)#2"$ 5ut this doctrine contemplates a situation %here
an untenanted &armland is cultivated %ithout the lando%ner's 6no%ledge or against her %ill or
although permission to %or6 on the &arm %as given, there %as no intention to constitute the
%or6er as the agricultural lessee o& the &arm land)#2$ Dhe rule &inds no application in the
case at bar %here the petitioners are successors7in7interest to a tenanted land over %hich an
agricultural leasehold has long been established) Dhe consent given by the original o%ners to
constitute private respondent as the agricultural lessee o& the sub=ect landholding binds
private respondents %ho, as successors7in7interest o& the +pouses +an ;iego, step into the
latter's shoes, acquiring not only their rights but also their obligations)#22$
Contradicting their position that no agricultural leasehold e,ists over the land they acquired
&rom the +pouses +an ;iego, petitioners also pray &or the termination o& the tenancy o&
private respondent allegedly due to. @aA non7payment o& the agricultural lease rental> and @bA
animosity bet%een the lando%ners and the agricultural lessee) Dhe Court, ho%ever, observes
that no%here in the petitionersH Ans%er to private respondent's Complaint or in the other
pleadings &iled be&ore the trial court did petitioners allege grounds &or the termination o& the
agricultural leasehold) Eell7settled is the rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot
be raised &or the &irst time on appeal)#28$
0n &ine, the Court, a&ter a painsta6ing e,amination o& the entire records o& the case and
ta6ing into account the applicable la%, as %ell as the relevant =urisprudence, rules that
private 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 has
unilaterally decided to pay only 2:T o& the net harvests to petitioners)#23$ +ince the
agreement o& private respondent %ith the +pouses +an ;iego, the original o%ners, %as &or a
&i&ty7&i&ty @:"7:"A sharing o& the net produce o& the land, the same sharing agreement should
be maintained bet%een petitioners and private respondent, %ithout pre=udice to a
renegotiation o& the terms o& the leasehold agreement)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is ;0+M0++E; and the decision o& the Court
o& 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=ect
landholding 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 ordered
above)
+- -R;ERE;)
-utierre), Jr., (Chairman), !idin, avide, Jr., and #elo, JJ., concur)
#$ Penned by Associate 'ustice Al&redo M) Marigomen %ith the concurrence o& Associate
'ustices '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)
#<$ Anne, /A/ to the Petition> 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)
#$ +ections 3 and : o& R)A) No) 8933 @!48A, as amended by R)A) No) 498! @!<A,
provide.
/+ec) 3) Abolition o& Agricultural +hare Denancy) 7 Agricultural share tenancy, as herein
de&ined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolishedU/
/+ec) :) Establishment o& Agricultural 2easehold Relation) 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold
relation shall be established by operation o& la% in accordance %ith +ection &our o& this Code,
in other cases, either orally or in %riting, e,pressly or impliedly)/
#2$ Dhe latest agrarian re&orm la%, R)A) No) 44:< @!99A, other%ise 6no%n as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm 2a% o& !99, provides &or the continuation and maintenance
o& the right to security o& tenure o& agricultural lessees acquired prior to the passage o& the
la%) +ection 4, paragraph 8 o& the Act provides. /0n all cases, the security o& tenure o& the
&armers or &arm%or6ers on the land prior to the approval o& this Act shall be respected)/
#8$ +ection 9 o& R)A) No) 8933, as amended, provides.
/+ec) 9) E,tinguishment o& Agricultural 2easehold Relation) V Dhe agricultural leasehold
relation established under this Code shall be e,tinguished by.
@A Abandonment o& the landholding %ithout the 6no%ledge o& the agricultural lessor>
@2A (oluntary surrender o& the landholding by the agricultural lessee, %ritten notice o& %hich
shall be served three months in advance> or
@8A Absence o& the persons under +ection nine to succeed to the lessee in the event o& death
or permanent incapacity o& the lessee)/
#3$ +ee Danalgo v. Court o& Appeals, I)R) No) 2783:"9, April 8", !9", !< +CRA 32) +ee
also Primero v. CAR, " Phil) 4<: @!:<A)
#:$ I)R) No) 27:!<42, May , !93, 2! +CRA 2")
#4$ Id ), at 2:) Citations omitted)
#<$ I)R) No) 27844:3, March 8, !9<, 3! +CRA 3<)
#9$ I)R) Nos) 273429798, August !, !99, 43 +CRA :49)
#!$ Id), at :937:9:)
#2"$ 5erenguer v. Court o& Appeals, I)R) Nos) 274"29<, August <, !99, 43 +CRA 38)
#2$ 1or an illustration o& the last mentioned situation, see Dua*on v. Court o& Appeals, I)R)
Nos) 274"29<, August <, !99, 43 +CRA 38)
#22$ Danalgo v. Court o& Appeals, supra, note 3)
#28$ Matien*o v. +ervidad, I)R) No) 298:, +eptember ", !9, "< +CRA 2<4>
Reparations Commission v. (isayan Pac6ing Corporation, I)R) No) 8"<2, 1ebruary 4, !!,
!8 +CRA :8)
#23$ RDC ;ecision, p) 4> Rollo, p) ":)

+ource. +upreme Court E72ibrary
Dhis page %as dynamically generated
by the E72ibrary Content Management +ystem @E72ibCM+A
Cua/o vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 1%$159,
September 26, 1994 2)$ SCRA 124
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&2224
DB0R; ;0(0+0-N
# I)R) No) "<:!, +eptember 24, !!3 $
+P-C+E+ AMA;E- CCAW- AN; ACR-RA K) CCAW-, PED0D0-NER+, (+) C-CRD -1 APPEA2+,
RENAD- CR0+D-5A2, (0RI020- ;0EI-, RAM-N ARE-2A, PE;R- ;0-N0C0-, DERE+A
ER022A, 2CC0A CC;0A, 2CC02A BERNAN;EN, I20CER0A ER022A, 1RANC0+C-
CR0+D-5A2, 1E20C0+0M- CR0+D-5A2, 'AC0ND- CC;0A, E;;0E CAP0NP0N, R0CAR;-
CAP0NP0N, A21-N+- AND-N0-, (ENANC0- AN;AN, AN;RE+ +AND-+, 5EN N0CAN-R,
;AN02- KANIA, CE+AR ;E ICNMAN, ACRE20- +AND0AI-, 1-RDCNAD- MEN;0ERE,
50EN(EN0;- P020, E2-K ;E ICNMAN, 2C0+ 1RANC0+C-, AN; +AND-+ E+P0R0DC,
RE+P-N;END+)
; E C 0 + 0 - N
FE(ICI'&O, J.:
Amadeo and Aurora CuaMo @LCuaMo spousesFA as6 us to reverse a decision o& the Court o&
Appeals %hich, a&&irming the =udgment o& the trial court, held that private respondents %ere
tenants o& the late Andres Cru* and accordingly eligible to e,ercise a right o& redemption in
respect o& the land they %ere %or6ing on %hich %as sold to petitioner CuaMo spouses)
0n !:4, Andres Cru* acquired a parcel o& land situated in +apang, 'aen, Nueva Eci=a %ith an
area o& 2":,4! square meters, %hich %as then planted to some "" mango trees)
0n !:9, Andres Cru* too6 in private respondents to %or6 on his land) Dhey %ere assigned
speci&ic areas to %or6 on and cultivate) Dhey planted more mango trees and cared &or them,
cultivating the &ruit7bearing trees, &ertili*ing, smudging and spraying them %ith insecticides
and &lo%er7inducing chemicals) A&ter deducting t%enty7&ive percent @2:TA o& the gross
proceeds as reimbursement to Andres Cru* %ho purchased the &ertili*ers, insecticides and
chemicals used in the operations o& the &arm, the balance o& the proceeds o& each portion or
area o& the &arm %as shared equally bet%een the private respondents assigned to such area
and Andres Cru*)
Andres Cru* died in !<4 and the o%nership o& the land passed on to his t%o @2A daughters,
Cecilia Cru*7Mendiola and Carmen Cru*7;olor) Private respondents, ho%ever, continued to
%or6 on the land and the net proceeds o& the &arm operations continued to be divided
bet%een Andres Cru*Hs daughters and private respondents)
-n 9 November !9", the t%o @2A daughters, %ithout previous noti&ication to private
respondents, e,ecuted a contract to sell the land to the CuaMo spouses, petitioners herein)
+ometime in ;ecember !9", one Ma=or Romy Cru*, apparently a military o&&icer and %ith
the help o& some military personnel, ousted private respondents &rom the land) Dhe &arm %as
&enced in and private respondents %ere prevented &rom entering upon and %or6ing on the
land) As a result, private respondents &iled a complaint against Ma=or Cru* be&ore the Court o&
Agrarian Relations) +o &ar as the record sho%s, private respondents %ere not then yet a%are
o& the contract to sell the property to the CuaMo spouses> in any case, only the t%o @2A
daughters o& Andres Cru* %ere impleaded %ith Ma=or Cru* in that suit)
-n ! 'une !9, Cecilia and Carmen, the t%o @2A daughters o& Andres Cru*, consummated
the sale o& the land to the CuaMo spouses &or a total stated consideration o& P<9<,:"")"",
again %ithout the 6no%ledge o& private respondents)
1our @3A days later, on 28 'une !9, the CuaMo spouses obtained a loan o& P,:"",""")""
and, to secure that loan, constituted a mortgage on the land in &avor o& the lender, 1irst
+umma +avings and Mortgage 5an6, no% 6no%n as PA0C +avings and Mortgage 5an6
@LPA0CFA)
Dhe ne,t day, on 23 'une !9, the deed o& sale in &avor o& the CuaMo spouses, %as
registered) -n that same day, Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle covering the &ive @:A lots into
%hich the original 2"):4! hectares had been divided, %ere issued in the name o& petitioner
CuaMo spouses)
-n 4 November !9, private respondents commenced suit against the CuaMo spouses
claiming that, as tenants or agricultural lessees, they %ere entitled to redeem the land
pursuant to +ection 2 o& R)A) No) 8933 @6no%n as Dhe Agricultural 2and Re&orm CodeA as
amended by R)A) No) 489!, %hich reads as &ollo%s.
8+ec) 2) 2esseeHs Right o& Redemption) 0n case the landholding is sold to a third
person %ithout the 6no%ledge o& the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the
right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration. Provided, Dhat
%here there are t%o or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said
right o& redemption only to the e,tent o& the area actually cultivated by him) Dhe
right o& redemption under this section may be e,ercised %ithin one hundred and
eighty days &rom notice in %riting %hich shall be served by the vendee on all
lessees a&&ected and the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm upon the registration o&
the sale, and shall have priority over any other right o& redemption) Dhe
redemption price shall be the reasonable price o& the land at the time o& the sale)
Cpon the &iling o& the corresponding petition or request %ith the department or
corresponding 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 si,ty 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 2and 5an6 shall &inance
said redemption as in the case o& pre7emption)F
Dhe 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines @L2and 5an6FA %as impleaded as a party7de&endant in order
to require it to &inance the redemption demanded by private respondents) PA0C, as
mortgagee 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& private
respondents) Dhe dispositive portion o& this =udgment reads as &ollo%s.
8EBERE1-RE, =udgment is hereby rendered as &ollo%s.
) ;eclaring that plainti&&s are entitled to redeem, and ordering ;e&endants
spouses Amado CuaMo and Aurora CuaMo to allo% plainti&&s to redeem the
landholding in question %ithin 9" days &rom &inality o& this decision at the price o&
P<9<,:"" &ree &rom the mortgage in &avor o& de&endant PA0C +avings 5an6, plus
interest thereon at the legal rate counted &rom the time all the plainti&&s shall have
been &ully reinstated and?or restored to the possession o& the respective areas
assigned to them by the late Andres Cru*, until said price shall have been &ully
paid)
2) -rdering de&endants spouses CuaMo and all persons claiming under them to
vacate the landholding in question and to surrender the same to the plainti&&s as
their share tenants>
8) ;eclaring that de&endant PA0C +avings and Mortgage 5an6 has pre&erential
right as against de&endants CuaMo +pouses in and to the proceeds o& the
redemption o& the landholding to the e,tent o& the latterHs mortgage obligation to
it, and authori*ing de&endant PA0C +avings and Mortgage 5an6 to collect said
proceeds and apply the same against said mortgage obligation>
3) -rdering de&endant 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines to &inance the redemption by
the plainti&&s o& the landholding in question in accordance %ith paragraph , above,
sub=ect to the provisions o& R)A) 8933, as amended, and compliance %ith all legal
requirements>
:) -rdering de&endants CuaMo +pouses to e,ecute a 1inancing Agreement &or
Agrarian Redemption by %ay o& conveyance o& the landholding in question and to
deliver to de&endant 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines the duly approved
subdivision?segregation survey plan o& the landholding, %hen required by the
latter>
4) -rdering plainti&&s to e,ecute an underta6ing to amorti*e to de&endant 2and
5an6 o& the Philippines the total amount the latter shall have paid to de&endants
Amadeo CuaMo and Aurora CuaMo under the terms and conditions o&
de&endant 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines, %hen required by the latter>
<) 0&, &or any reason, the redemption is not, or cannot be, e&&ected, ordering
de&endants Amadeo CuaMo and Aurora CuaMo to deliver to plainti&&s their
respective shares in the harvests &or three years, computed on the basis o& their
last liquidation &or one year>
9) -rdering ;e&endants, e,cept 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines, to pay the costs o&
the suit)
+- -R;ERE;)F#$
-n appeal by the CuaMo spouses, the Court o& Appeals a&&irmed the =udgment o& the trial
court in its entirety)#2$
0n the present Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari, the principal contentions o& the CuaMo
spouses are the &ollo%ing.
1irstly, the original lando%ner, Andres Cru*, never gave his consent to the tenancy or
agricultural leasehold relationship, since the alleged tenants or lessees had been hired merely
as paid laborers by an overseer o& the lando%ner> secondly, the element o& personal
cultivation by the tenants or agricultural lessees %as absent, considering that the alleged
tenants or agricultural lessees had availed themselves o& the services o& paid laborers to carry
out some &arm operations> thirdly, the annotation in the Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle issued in
the name o& petitioner spouses that the land %as not tenanted, %as conclusive proo& that no
tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship e,isted in respect o& such land)
PA0C too came to us on its o%n Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari o& the decision o& the Court
o& Appeals @I)R) No) "449A) 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) "<:!A praying that it be
allo%ed to intervene in these proceedings) 0n this -mnibus Motion, PA0C reiterated the
argument it had made be&ore the Court o& Appeals that the right o& redemption o& tenants or
agricultural lessees under R)A) No) 8933, as amended, cannot be held to invalidate the rights
o& 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) Ee
consider 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 @A o& %hich de&ines agricultural land
as
8land devoted to any gro%th, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, &ish
ponds, idle lands, and abandoned lands as de&ined in pars) 9 and ! o& this
section, respectively)F @Emphasis suppliedA
0t is %orth noting also that R)A) No) !!, the earlier statute 6no%n as LDhe Agricultural
Denancy Act o& the Philippines,F e&&ective 8" August !:3, although it did not e,pressly de&ine
agricultural land> did not limit its scope to rice land> to the contrary, Chapter 000, +ection 3
o& the statute, among other provisions, e,pressly 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, the
applicable statute, R)A) No) !!, de&ined Lshare tenancyF and LtenantF in the &ollo%ing
terms.
8+ection 3) +ystems o& Agricultural Denancy> Dheir ;e&initions) 77 Agricultural
tenancy is classi&ied into leasehold tenancy and share tenancy)
+hare tenancy e,ists %henever t%o persons agree on a =oint underta6ing &or
agricultural 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 be
divided bet%een the landholder and the tenant in proportion to their respective
contributions)
2easehold tenancy e,ists %hen a person %ho, either personally or %ith the aid o&
labor available &rom members o& his immediate &arm household, underta6es to
cultivate a piece o& agricultural land susceptible o& cultivation by a single person
together %ith members o& his immediate &arm household belonging to or legally
possessed by, another in consideration o& a &i,ed amount in money or in produce
or in both) @As amended by Rep) Act No) 2248, approved 'une !, !:!)A
+ection :) ;e&inition o& Derms) 77 As used in this Act.
@aA 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
possessed by, another, %ith the latterHs consent &or purposes o& production, sharing
the produce %ith 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)
, , , , ,
, , , ,)F
;uring the li&etime o& Andres Cru*, R)A) No) 8933 @approved on 9 August !48A %ent into
e&&ect) +ection 44 o& R)A) No) 8933 as amended by R)A) No) 489! @approved on "
+eptember !<A de&ined Lagricultural lesseeF in the &ollo%ing manner.
8+ec) 44) ;e&inition o& Derms) 77 , , ,
@2A GAgricultural lesseeH means a person %ho, by himsel& and %ith the aid available
&rom %ithin his immediate &arm household, cultivates, the land belonging to, or
possessed by, another %ith the latterHs consent &or purposes o& production, &or a
price certain in money or in produce or both) 0t is distinguished &rom civil la%
lessee as understood in the Civil Code o& the Philippines)
, , , , ,
, , , ,F
0t is apparent &rom the &oregoing that a Lshare tenantF and an Lagricultural lesseeF are
de&ined in very similar terms and that a share tenancy and an agricultural lease relationship
have the &ollo%ing common requisite elements.
@A Dhe parties are the lando%ner and the tenant or agricultural lessee>
@2A Dhe sub=ect matter o& the relationship is agricultural land>
@8A Dhere is consent bet%een the parties to the relationship>
@3A Dhe purpose o& the relationship is to bring about agricultural production>
@:A Dhere is personal cultivation on the part o& the tenant or agricultural lessee>
and
@4A Dhe harvest is shared bet%een the lando%ner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee)#:$
0n respect o& the element o& consent, petitioner CuaMo spouses contend that that element
%as absent in the case at bar because private respondents, alleged tenants or agricultural
lessees, had merely been hired by an overseer, one Evaristo Erilla, %ithout the authority o&
Andres Cru* or his successors7in7interest, his t%o @2A daughters Carmen and Cecilia)
0t appears &rom the record that Evaristo Erilla had acted as overseer o& the land and the &arm
operations therein, both during the li&etime o& Andres Cru* and a&ter his death %hen his t%o
@2A daughters succeeded to the o%nership o& the land)#4$ Considering that private
respondents had %or6ed on the land since !:9, %e &ind it very di&&icult to suppose that the
original 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 !<4, Andres Cru* had been receiving his annual share in the harvest or the net
proceeds o& the harvest &rom his mango plantation) +imilarly, &rom !<4 up to !9, during
the time that Carmen and Cecilia %ere o%ners o& the land, they received their respective
shares o& the net proceeds o& the &arm operations) Moreover, considering the si*e o& the
landholding, 2"):4! hectares, both Andres Cru* and his t%o @2A daughters must have 6no%n
that the overseer Evaristo Erilla could not have cultivated and cared &or the mango plantation
and produced the net harvest there&rom personally and single7handedly) 5y !9", there %ere
at least 4"" mango trees in the plantation)#<$ 0t is thus clear to the Court that the
lando%ners cannot reasonably claim ignorance about the presence o& private respondents in
the mango plantation) 1or more than t%enty @2"A years, Andres Cru* and later his t%o @2A
daughters had not ob=ected to the presence and the agricultural role or activities o& private
respondents in respect o& the mango plantation) Consent to that relationship %ith private
respondents must be imputed to Andres Cru* and his t%o @2A daughters)
0t %as, o& course, incumbent upon petitioner spouses to prove their de&ense that the overseer
had acted %ithout the 6no%ledge and authority o& Andres Cru*, and later o& his t%o @2A
daughters, %ith proo& more substantial than the bare allegations o& petitioner spouses) No
such proo& %as adduced by them)
Ee must, there&ore, conclude at this point that the overseer Evaristo Erilla had hired or
retained private respondents as tenants and later as agricultural lessees %ith the 6no%ledge
and acquiescence o& the landholder@sA) Ee consider that this 6no%ledge and acquiescence on
the part o& the landholders validated the relationship created @hypotheticallyA by the overseer
and private respondents) 1or this reason, Evaristo Erilla is properly considered as an agent o&
the lando%ner@sA %ho acted as such %ith at least implied or apparent authority and %hose
principal@sA %ere accordingly bound to private respondents)
0n other %ords, Erilla as an agent o& the lando%ner@sA %as not an independent personality
%ho could provide insulation &or the lando%ners &rom their legal obligations to private
respondents as tenants or agricultural lessees) Do hold that the lando%ner@sA did not give
their consent because private respondents had been hired or retained by the overseer, %ould
be to provide the lando%ner@sA %ith too easy an escape &rom the thrust o& agrarian re&orm
la%s by the simple e,pedient o& hiring an employee or overseer to stand bet%een the
lando%ner@sA and the tenants or agricultural lessees) Do sustain this particular argument o&
petitioners %ould be to erode the &orce and e&&ect o& R)A) No) 8933, as amended, %ell7nigh to
the vanishing point)
Petitioners also contend that the element o& Lpersonal cultivationF on the part o& private
respondents %as absent) 0t is asserted that private respondents did not LcultivateF the
portions o& the landholding %hich had been assigned to them, that private respondents had
been hired simply to carry out particular =obs such as the LsmudgingF or Lsmo6ingF o& the
mango trees) Dhe Court o& Appeals, ho%ever, &ound that private respondents had carried out
all 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, %eeding
and %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 or
smo6ing the trees and applying &ertili*ers and chemical &lo%er7inducers)#9$ 0t is use&ul to
note in this connection that the concept o& LcultivationF is not limited to the plo%ing or
harro%ing o& the soil as in rice and corn &ields) Cultivation includes all activities designed to
promote the gro%th and care o& the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by general
industry, so that it may bring &orth more products or &ruits) +uch is the gist o& our case la% in
respect o& coconut plantations,#!$ case la% that %e consider equally applicable to mango
plantations)
Petitioner spouses also aver that such cultivation as %as done by private respondent tenants
or lessees %as not LpersonalF in character, considering that private respondents had availed
themselves o& the services o& &arm laborers hired by the overseer) Cnder the statutory
de&inition o& an agricultural lessee quoted earlier, an agricultural lessee is a person L%ho by
himsel&, or %ith the aid available &rom %ithin his immediate &arm householdF cultivates the
land belonging to or possessed by another)#"$ Dhe &act, ho%ever, that a tenant or an
agricultural lessee may have been assisted by &arm laborers, on an occasional or temporary
basis, hired by the lando%ners, does not preclude the element o& Lpersonal cultivationF
essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship) 0n ;e Iu*man v) +antos,#$ the
mere &act that the tenant did not do all the &arm %or6 himsel& but temporarily or on an
emergency basis utili*ed the services o& others to assist him, %as not ta6en to mean that the
tenant had thereby breached the requirement imposed by the statute) Ee do not consider
that the statute prohibits the tenant or agricultural lessee %ho generally %or6s the land
himsel& or %ith the aid o& members o& his immediate household, &rom availing occasionally or
temporarily o& the help o& others in speci&ic =obs)#2$
Ee agree, there&ore, %ith the Court o& Appeals that all the above7noted elements o& a share
tenancy and an agricultural lease relationship e,isted bet%een the lando%ner@sA and private
respondents and that accordingly, private respondents %ere share tenants and later
agricultural lessees o& Andres Cru*, and later o& his t%o @2A daughters and ultimately o&
petitioners CuaMo spouses)
Petitioner CuaMo 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& an
agricultural leaseholdA relationship bet%een the lando%ner@sA and private respondents) Dhere
are &ive @:A Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle standing in the name o& the CuaMo spouses and each
Certi&icate o& Ditle contains the &ollo%ing annotation.
8Entry No) 82<37ND7<"9"9.
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 relationship
bet%een the registered o%ners o& the land and private respondents is concerned)
Ee believe and so hold that such annotation cannot be regarded as conclusive upon the
courts o& =ustice as to the legal nature and incidents o& the relationship bet%een the
lando%ner@sA in this case and private respondents) 1irstly, the annotation serves basically
as notice to all persons o& the e,istence 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&ication
issued by Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo o& the MAR @Ministry o& Agrarian Re&ormA is very much li6e
the certi&ications issued by the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm and other o&&icials o& the Ministry
and later the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm concerning the e,istence o& tenancy
relationships in respect o& agricultural lands &rom %hich persons, %ho claim to be tenants, are
sought 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 concerning
the presence or absence o& a tenancy relationship bet%een the contending parties is merely
preliminary 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$, it is clear that the trial court cannot ta6e cogni*ance o& any
Ge=ectment case or any other case designed to harass or remove a tenant in an
agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and cornH %ithout &irst re&erring the same
to the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm or his authori*ed representative in the locality
&or a preliminary determination o& the relationship bet%een the contending parties)
0& said o&&icer &inds that the case is proper &or determination by the court it shall so
certi&y and thence said court may assume =urisdiction over the dispute or
controversy) +uch preliminary determination o& the relationship ho%ever, is not
binding upon the court) +aid court may a&ter due hearing con&irm, reverse or
modi&y said preliminary determination as the evidence and substantial merit o& the
case may %arrant)F#<$ @Emphases suppliedA
Dhirdly, a certi&icate o& title is, in general, conclusive evidence only o& the o%nership o& the
land described therein and as to the matters %hich %ere actually contested and determined,
or could have litigated and decided, in the land registration proceeding)#9$ A land
registration court cannot ad=udicate the e,istence or non7e,istence o& a tenancy relationship
since e,clusive =urisdiction over such relationship %as vested in the Court o& Agrarian
Relations#!$ and later in the Regional Drial Court)#2"$
Ee turn, &inally, to the right to redeem the land here involved) 0n vie% o& our conclusion that
private respondents %ere share tenants and later agricultural lessees o& the o%ner@sA o& that
land, it &ollo%s that private respondents %ere entitled to redeem the land upon the alienation
thereo& by the t%o @2A daughters o& Andres Cru* in &avor o& petitioner CuaMo spouses) Dhis
right o& redemption is statutory in character, that is to say, it is created by and rests upon the
provisions 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$he 2and Re&orm Code &orges by operation o& la%, bet%een the lando%ner
and the &armer7 be a leasehold tenant or temporarily a share tenant7 a vinculum
=uris %ith certain vital consequences, such as security o& tenure o& the tenant and
the tenantHs right to continue in possession o& the land he %or6s despite the
e,piration o& the contract or the sale or trans&er o& the land to third persons, and
no%, more basically, the &armerHs pre7emptive right to buy the land he cultivates
under section o& the Code, as %ell as the right to redeem the land, i& sold to a
third person %ithout his 6no%ledge, under section 2 o& this
Code)F#22$ @Emphases suppliedA
Ehile conceding that the la% grants priority to the tenantHs right o& redemption, PA0C
contends vigorously that this priority e,tends only in respect o& other rights o& redemption
and not in respect o& speci&ic lien o& a voluntary mortgage) Dhe claim o& PA0C is that its
mortgage lien subsists and attaches to the tenanted land even a&ter it has been redeemed by
the tenants and that, consequently, PA0C %ould then still be entitled to &oreclose its mortgage
lien over the property here involved)
PA0CHs argument does not persuade)
As discussed earlier, the land %as, in the hands o& the t%o @2A daughters o& Andres Cru* and
o& petitioner CuaMo spouses, already sub=ect to the right o& redemption vested in private
respondents) 0t &ollo%s that %hen the CuaMo spouses mortgaged that same land to secure a
loan obtained &rom PA0C, PA0CHs right as mortgagee %as sub=ect to, and =unior to, the prior
right o& private respondents to redeem the said property) Put a little di&&erently, %hat the
CuaMo spouses mortgaged to PA0C %as not absolute or unquali&ied dominium plenum over
the 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 the
annotation in the Drans&er Certi&icates o& Ditle o& the CuaMo spouses re&erring to the
certi&ication o& Mr) Eugenio 5ernardo that the property %as not tenanted) Ee consider that a
mortgagee 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
indicates, in this connection, that the CuaMo spouses obtained their loan &rom PA0C one day
be&ore the Certi&icates o& Ditle %ere issued in the name o& CuaMo spouses)#28$ As pointed out
earlier, litigation had by then bro6en out bet%een private respondents and the t%o @2A
daughters o& Andres Cru* together %ith Ma=or Cru*) PA0C has not demonstrated that, %ith
even a modest degree o& diligence on its part as a prospective mortgagee, it could not have
acquired actual notice o& such litigation)
0t is especially note%orthy that although the CuaMo spouses purchased &rom Cecilia and
Carmen, the t%o @2A daughters o& Andres Cru*, the land in question &or the price o&
P<9<,:"")"", &our @3A days later, the CuaMo spouses mortgaged the same piece o& land to
secure a loan o& P): Million &rom PA0C 5an6)#23$ +ince the stated purchase price o&
P<9<,:"")"" paid by the CuaMo spouses to their vendors may be assumed to be the true and
complete consideration &or the land, it is di&&icult to understand ho% PA0C could, &our @3A days
later, con&ormably %ith good ban6ing practice, have ascribed to the same land the loanable
value o& P): Million) 0t is also di&&icult to assume that the &air and reasonable value o& the
land %ould have doubled %ithin a &our @3A day period> the record o&&ers no e,planation &or
such an e,traordinary leap in value)
Ee consider that, at all events, PA0CHs right o& recourse, inso&ar as its mortgage loan is
concerned, is not against the land itsel& nor against private respondents, but rather against
its mortgagors, the petitioner CuaMo spouses)
1inally, &or purposes o& applying the provisions o& +ection 2 o& R)A) No) 8933, as amended,
%hich speci&ies that the Lredemption priceF shall be the Lreasonable price o& the land at the
time o& the sale,F %e agree that the valuation placed by the CuaMo spouses themselves %hen
they paid P<9<,:"")"" &or the land, must be ta6en to be the reasonable price o& the land
purchased by them)
WHEREFORE, &or all the &oregoing, the Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari, and the -mnibus
Motion &iled by PA0C in this case, are hereby ;EN0E; &or lac6 o& merit) Dhe assailed ;ecision
o& the Court o& Appeals is hereby A110RME;) Costs against petitioners)
SO ORDERED.
Romero, #elo, and Jitug, JJ., concur)
!idin, J., on leave)
#$ Drial Court ;ecision, pp) !7"> Records, pp) 3732)
#2$ Rollo, pp) 23732)
#8$ Rollo, p) 4!)
#3$ +ee, e)g), +ection : @cA, R)A) No) !!, as amended, %here re&erence is made to
Lcoconut, citrus, co&&ee, ramie and other cropsF> and +ection : @iA, id)77, %here LharvestingF is
de&ined to mean Lthe gathering o& the &ruits or the produce o& a crop other than rice)F +ee
also Mendo*a vs) Manguiat, !4 Phil 8"! @!:3A> ;e los Reyes vs) Espinelli, 8" +CRA :<3
@!4!A> Dongson vs) Court o& Appeals, 2: +CRA 324 @!!2A)
#:$ Castillo vs) Court o& Appeals, 2": +CRA :2! @!!2A> Prudential 5an6 vs) Iapultos, 9
+CRA :! @!!"A> Namoras vs) +u, 93 +CRA 239 @!!"A> Castro vs) Court o& Appeals, 4!
+CRA 898 @!9!A)
#4$ Drial Court ;ecision, p) 8> Records, p) 3":)
#<$ Court o& Appeals ;ecision, p) :> Rollo, p) 98)
#9$ Court o& Appeals ;ecision, p) 2> Rollo, p) !")
#!$ Iuerrero vs) Court o& Appeals, 32 +CRA 84 @!94A> Coconut Cooperative Mar6eting
Association @C-C-MAA vs) Court o& Appeals, 43 +CRA :49 @!99A> Bernande* vs)
0ntermediate Appellate Court, 9! +CRA <:9 @!!"A)
#"$ +ection 44 @2A, R)A) No) 8933, as amended)
#$ 4 +CRA <!: @!42A)
#2$ Carag vs) Court o& Appeals, : +CRA 33 #!9<$)
#8$ Records, pp) 28, 2:, 2<, 2! and 8)
#3$ +ection : o& Act No) 3!4 provides.
8+ec) :) Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order,
decree, instrument, or entry a&&ecting registered land %hich %ould under e,isting la%s, i&
recorded, &iled, or entered in the o&&ice o& the Register o& ;eeds, a&&ect the real estate to
%hich it relates shall, i& registered, &iled, or entered in the o&&ice o& the Register o& ;eeds in
the province or city %here the real estate to %hich such instruments relates, be notice to all
persons &rom the time o& such registering, &iling, or entering)F @Cnderscoring suppliedA
+ection : above is substantially reproduced in +ection :2 o& P);) No) :2!, LDhe Property
Registration ;ecreeF e&&ective 'une !<9) +ee also +eton v) Rodrigue*, " Phil) :39
@!4"A> and Iurba, +ingh Pabla and Co) v) Reyes, !2 Phil) << @!:2A)
#:$ +ee e)g), +ection 2, P);) No) 84, e&&ective 22 -ctober !<8> +ection 2, P);) No) !34,
e&&ective < 'une !<4)
#4$ :4 +CRA 99 @!9<A)
#<$ :4 +CRA at !8) Dhe above ruling %as reiterated in Ira*a, et al) v ) Bon) Court o&
Appeals, et al), 48 +CRA 8! @!99A> ;ela Cru* v ) 5autista , 94 +CRA :< @!!"A>
and Qua v ) Court o& Appeals , !9 +CRA 284 @!!A) 0t may also be noted that +ection "4 o&
P);) No) :2! requires only an a&&idavit o& the vendor or e,ecutor o& Lprivate agricultural land
principally devoted to rice or cornF stating Lthat the land involved is not tenanted, or i&
tenanted, the same is not primarily devoted to production o& rice and?or corn)F
+uch a&&idavit can scarcely be considered as birding upon the courts in any subsequent
litigation involving the =uridical nature o& the relationship bet%een the lando%ner and persons
claiming to be tenants o& the land)
#9$ ;i*on v) 5anues, "3 Phil) 3"< @!:9A> 2apore v) Pascual, "< Phil) 4!: @!4"A)
#!$ +ec) :3, R)A) No) 8933, as amended> +ec) 2, P);) No) !34> 1errer vs) (illamor, 4"
+CRA "4 @!<3A)
#2"$ +ection !@<A in relation to +ection 33, 5)P) 5lg) 2!)
#2$ 88 +CRA ":, #!<"$)
#22$ Id), pp) 278)
#28$ Drial Court ;ecision, p) <> Records, p) 3"!)
#23$ Id), p) 8> Records, p) 3":)

+ource. +upreme Court E72ibrary
Dhis page %as dynamically generated
by the E72ibrary Content Management +ystem @E72ibCM+A
0"#l#pp#'e Nat#o'al 1a'2 vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 1%5$6%, &uly $, 199$ 2$5 SCRA $1
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&4!9&
Dhis is a Petition &or Revie% on Certiorari o& the Resolution o& the Court o& Appeals @CAA
dated 'une 8, !!2, in the case doc6eted as C)A)7I)R) +P No) 28:<8, entitled Philippine
National 5an6 vs) Bon) 'udge o& the Regional Drial Court o& Iapan, Nueva Eci=a, 5ranch 83,
et) al) 0n said Resolution, the CA granted private respondent Nilde&onso MontanoHs Motion &or
Reconsideration o& its ;ecision dated +eptember 8, !!, thereby a&&irming the -rder o& the
Regional Drial Court o& Iapan, Nueva Eci=a, 5ranch 83, dissolving the Erit o& Possession
issued in &avor o& petitioner Philippine National 5an6 @PN5A)
Dhe &acts, as culled &rom the partiesH pleadings, are as &ollo%s.
0n !<9, spouses Crisanto de la Cru* and Pepita Montano mortgaged t%o parcels o& land to
petitioner PN5 &or a loan o& D%enty7&our Dhousand Pesos @P23,""")""A) +aid parcels o& land
%ere covered by Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle No) ND7<:42, and more particularly described
as.
) 2ot 4371, Psd 8488 o& the Cabiao Cadastre, containing an area o& 8,94! square meters,
and
2) 2ot 437B, Psd 8488 o& Cabiao Cadastre, containing an area o& 3,"<9 square meters)
-n -ctober 2, !93, petitioner PN5 e,tra=udicially &oreclosed the mortgage and %as the only
bidder at the public auction sale) Dhus, on the same day, a Certi&icate o& +ale over said lots
%as issued in &avor o& PN5> this &act %as subsequently annotated on DCD No) ND7<:42 on
November 29, !93)
-n +eptember 23, !94, petitioner PN5 &iled be&ore the Regional Drial Court o& Iapan, Nueva
Eci=a, 5ranch 83, a Petition &or the 0ssuance o& a Erit o& Possession, alleging therein that by
virtue o& a &oreclosure sale %herein it purchased the sub=ect properties and due to the
mortgagorsH @spouses Crisanto de la Cru* and Pepita MontanoA &ailure to redeem the property
%ithin a period o& one year, it had become the absolute o%ner o& the same and is entitled to a
Erit o& Possession) +aid petition %as granted by the RDC and the %rit prayed &or %as issued
on November 2", !94)
5e&ore implementation o& the %rit, herein private respondent Montano &iled a Motion &or the
;issolution o& the Erit o& Possession on ;ecember !, !94, alleging that @A he %as instituted
as tenant on the sub=ect property even be&ore !<2 by the &ormer o%ners o& the land> @2A the
t%o lots are the sub=ect matters o& CAR Case No) 289< be&ore the Regional Drial Court o&
Iapan, Nueva Eci=a, 5ranch 84, %hich he instituted on 'anuary 9, !98 against spouses
Crisanto de la Cru* and Pepita Montano> @8A a&ter the &oreclosure o& the sub=ect land, his
@MontanoHsA counsel %rote PN5 o& the pending case bet%een the mortgagors and private
respondent as tenant on the land> @3A the issuance o& said Erit in PN5Hs &avor %ould %or6
grave in=ustice to him and violate his rights under P);) 2<, P);) 84, P);) :98, and other la%s
and legal issuances on land re&orm> @:A he %as issued a certi&ication by the Cabiao7+an 0sidro
Agrarian Re&orm Deam No) "87"37"29 that he is an agricultural lessee in the sub=ect
landholding and another certi&ication that he is an active member o& the +amahang Nayon>
and @4A in line %ith the ruling in LClapano vs) IapultosF @82 +CRA 32!A that possession o&
property is given to a purchaser in E,tra7'udicial &oreclosure unless a third7party is actually
holding the property adversely to the =udgment debtor, he is to be considered a Lthird
personF)
A&ter hearing, the RDC granted private respondent MontanoHs motion to dissolve the %rit o&
possession in an -rder dated August 29, !!") Petitioner PN5 appealed said -rder to this
Court, but pursuant to a Resolution dated November <, !!", the case %as re&erred to the
CA)
-n +eptember 8, !!, the CA rendered =udgment in &avor o& petitioner PN5) Bo%ever, said
court reversed itsel& %hen, upon motion by private respondent Montano, it issued a
Resolution dated 'une 8, !!8, reconsidering its ;ecision and a&&irming the RDCHs -rder o&
August 29, !!" dissolving the Erit o& Possession) Bence, this petition &or Revie% on
Certiorari, %herein petitioner PN5 alleges that the decision o& the CA is not in accordance %ith
la% and =urisprudence, contending that.
8I.
DBE C-CRD -1 APPEA2+ ERRE; 0N B-2;0NI DBAD PN5H+ R0IBD D- A ER0D -1
P-++E++0-N D- DBE 2-D+ 0+ PREMADCRE 5ECAC+E PN5 A+ 5CKER -N
1-REC2-+CRE +A2E BA+ N-D KED C-N+-20;ADE; 0D+ D0D2E D- DBE 2-D+
EB0CB C-C2; BA(E (E+DE; CP-N 0D A5+-2CDE -ENER+B0P AN; P-++E++0-N)
E0DB-CD RE;EMPD0-N 5K DBE M-RDIAI-R+, A2M-+D E0IBD @9A KEAR+
A2REA;K 2AP+E; 1R-M REI0+DRAD0-N -1 DBE CERD010CADE -1 +A2E -N
N-(EM5ER 2, !93 D- DBE CBA22ENIE; 'CNE 2, !!2 C-CRD -1 APPEA2+
RE+-2CD0-N) C-N+-20;AD0-N -1 D0D2E 0+ N-D A C-N;0D0-N PRECE;END D-
PN5H+ R0IBD D- DBE ER0D A+ -ENER CN;ER ARD) 329 AN; 32! -1 DBE C0(02
C-;E, REPC520C ACD N-) 88:, A+ AMEN;E;, AN; P);) N-) 89:) 0D 0+ DBE
M0N0+DER0A2 ;CDK -1 DBE C-CRD D- PCD PN5 0N P-++E++0-N -1 DBE 2-D+
;CR0NI AN; A1DER DBE RE;EMPD0-N PER0-;)
II.
DBE C-CRD -1 APPEA2+ ERRE; 0N B-2;0NI DBAD DBE +CPER(EN0NI 'C2K 28,
!! ;EC0+0-N 0N DBE AIRAR0AN +C0D @0N RDC IAPAN, 5R) 84, C0(02 CA+E N-)
289<, 102E; 5K M-NDAN- AIA0N+D CR0+AND- ;E 2A CRCN AN; PEP0DA
M-NDAN- -N2KA A;(ER+E2K A11ECDE; PN5, A+ PR-CEE;0NI+ 0N 102E N-) "":9
@0N RDC IAPAN, 5RANCB 83A, DBE PRECCR+-R -1 DB0+ APPEA2E; CA+E, -N
0NDER(END0-N 5K M-NDAN- -N ;ECEM5ER :, !94, 5ECAME A;(ER+AR0A2,
A+ -N +A0; ;ADE PN5 CANN-D ANKM-RE 0IN-RE M-NDAN-H+ ACDCA2
P-++E++0-N -1 DBE 2-D+, AN; A+ ACDCA2 SN-E2E;IE 5K PN5 -1 M-NDAN-H+
P-++E++0-N ;EC2ARE; 2EI0D0MADE AN; R0IBD1C2 5K +A0; ;EC0+0-N, 0+
EQC0(A2END D- REI0+DRAD0-N) BA(0NI RE20E; -N DCD N- ND7<:42 0N I--;
1A0DB AN; 1-R (A2CE, PN5H+ R0IBD D- DBE 2-D+ 0+ 0NC-NDE+DA52E)
M-NDAN-H+ DENANCK C2A0M EB0CB ;-E+ N-D APPEAR -N DBE D0D2E, 0+ N-D
-DBERE0+E SN-EN D- PN5 -N 0D+ -CC2AR 0N+PECD0-N 0N !<9, AN; 0+
5ARRE; 5K 2ACBE+, NEI20IENCE AN; E+D-PPE2) ;E+P0DE SN-E2E;IE DBAD
DBE 2-D+ EERE M-RDIAIE; AN; +-2; D- PN5, M-NDAN- C-N(EN0END2K
1A02E; D- 0MP2EA; DBE 5ANS 0N DBE AIRAR0AN +C0D> PN5 0+ N-D 5-CN; 5K
DBE ;EC0+0-N 0N +A0; +C0D> AN; 01 0N 1ACD BE EERE A 2EI0D0MADE DENAND,
B0+ R0IBD+ CAN 5E AMP2K (END02ADE; 0N A PR-PER PR-CEE;0NI) M-NDAN-H+
+DAK -N DBE 2-D 5E0NI 022EIA2, BE 0+ BAR;2K GDBE DB0R; PER+-N B-2;0NI
DBE PR-PERDK A;(ER+E D- DBE M-RDIAI-RH)
III.
DBE C-CRD -1 APPEA2+ ERRE; 0N ;EPR0(0NI PN5 -1 0D+ R0IBD A+ -ENER D-
DASE P-++E++0-N -1 DBE 2-D+ AN;, (0RDCA22K, D- +E22 DBE +AME C-NDRARK
D- DBE C-N+D0DCD0-NA2 ICARANDEE -1 R0IBD D- PR-PERDK @ARD) 000, +EC) ,
!9< C-N+D0DCD0-NA) DBE +-C0A2 'C+D0CE PR-(0+0-N -1 DBE !9<
C-N+D0DCD0-N C0DE; 5K DBE C-CRD -1 APPEA2+ 0+ N-D APP20CA52E)F
Private respondent Montano, on the other hand, argued in his Comment that even the
=urisprudence cited by petitioner PN5 states that the %rit o& possession %ill issue only a&ter
con&irmation o& title @1) ;avid Enterprises v) 0nsular 5an6, ! +CRA :4> I+0+ vs) Court o&
Appeals, 3: +CRA 83A or during the redemption period provided a proper motion has been
&iled, a bond approved, and there is no third person involved @5anco 1ilipino +avings and
Mortgage 5an6 vs) 0AC, 32 +CRA 34> PN5 vs) Midpantao Adil, 9 +CRA "A) Be li6e%ise
ac6no%ledged petitioner PN5 as the o%ner o& the sub=ect land, but asserted that he
@MontanoA remains to be its la%&ul possessor as tenant o& the landholding %ho has been
given security o& tenure by e,isting la%s)
2ater, in its Reply to private respondent MontanoHs Comment, petitioner PN5 mani&ested that
it has consolidated its title over the land and a ne% Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle has been
issued in its name) Bence, the de&ect o& prematurity has been cured, and there e,ists no
obstacle to the issuance o& a Erit o& Possession in its &avor)
Ee &ind the petition devoid o& merit)
Iranting that petitioner PN5Hs title over the sub=ect property has been consolidated or
con&irmed in its &avor, it is still not entitled to a %rit o& possession, as the same may be issued
in e,tra=udicial &oreclosure o& real estate mortgage only i& the debtor is in possession and no
third person had intervened)#$ +uch requisite is evidently lac6ing in the case at bar, as it has
been established that private respondent Montano has been in possession and &inally
ad=udged as the tenant on the landholding in question)
0t is also the erroneous belie& o& petitioner PN5 that the decision in the agrarian case is being
en&orced against it, and so contends that as it %as not impleaded as party in the agrarian
suit, the =udgment therein cannot a&&ect petitioner PN5) Dhe CA merely stated that /the
rendition o& the decision in the CAR case is a supervening event %hich proves that Nilde&onso
Montano is indeed a tenant o& the landholding)F No pronouncement %as made %hatsoever as
to %hether CAR decision is binding on petitioner PN5, but merely considered said CAR
decision as evidence in support o& private respondent MontanoHs allegation that he is a tenant
on the landholding in question)
Moreover, even i& petitioner PN5 had not been impleaded as party de&endant in the agrarian
suit, +ec) 3! @bA, Rule 8! o& the Rules o& Court provides that the =udgment, %ith respect to
the matter directly ad=udged therein, is conclusive bet%een the parties and their successors
in interest by title subsequent to the commencement o& the action) Dhe mortgage %as
e,tra=udicially &oreclosed only on -ctober 2, !93, the Certi&icate o& +ale in &avor o&
petitioner issued on the same day, and registered on November 29, !93, %hile the agrarian
case %as instituted on 'anuary 9, !98, prior to the levy> hence, petitioner too6 title to the
sub=ect property subsequent to the commencement o& the action) Dhe =udgment in the
agrarian suit, there&ore, is conclusive upon petitioner PN5)
Petitioner PN5 &urther insists that as absolute o%ner o& the properties, under Art) 329 and
32! o& the Ne% Civil Code, it has the right to possess and dispose o& the same) Dhese very
provisions cited, ho%ever, sho% that the e,ercise o& the rights o& o%nership are sub=ect to
limitations that may be imposed by la%) 0n the instant case, the Denancy Act and P);) 2<
have imposed limitations on petitioner PN5Hs e,ercise o& the rights o& o%nership) Dhis has
been discussed at length in this CourtHs ;ecision in the case o& LDanpingco vs) 0AC,F#2$ %here
%e held that.
8Cnder Art) 329 o& the Civil Code, the o%ner has the right to dispose o& a thing
%ithout other limitations than those established by la%) As an incident o&
o%nership, there&ore, there is nothing to prevent a lando%ner &orm donating his
na6ed title to the land) Bo%ever, the ne% o%ner must respect the rights o& the
tenant) +ec) < o& R)A) No) 8933, as amended @Code o& Agrarian Re&orms o& the
PhilippinesA gives the agricultural lessee the right to %or6 on the landholding once
the leasehold relationship is established)
, , , , , , , , ,
L#+$ecurity o& tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees %hich they value
as li&e itsel& and deprivation o& their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation o&
their only means o& livelihood) Also, under +ec) " o& the same Act, the la%
e,plicitly provides that the leasehold relation is not e,tinguished by the alienation
or trans&er o& legal possession o& the landholding)F @Cnderscoring oursA
Dhis doctrine has been reiterated in LEndaya vs) Court o& AppealsF,#8$ %here this Court
&urther held that the agricultural lesseeHs rights are en&orceable against the trans&eree or the
lando%nerHs successor7in7interest) Dhere&ore, as the ad=udged legitimate tenant on the land in
question, private respondent Montano may en&orce his right o& possession against petitioner
PN5, %hose contention that private respondent Montano is illegally occupying the property
lac6s basis in &act and in la%)
Petitioner PN5 may not, by %ay o& de&ense, argue that its right over the land is superior to
private respondent MontanoHs claim on the sub=ect properties since the agricultural lease %as
not annotated on the Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle and, there&ore, it dealt %ith the properties in
good &aith) Even i& the &act o& tenancy had not been re&lected on the title, petitioner PN5
admitted that be&ore they consented to the mortgage, an ocular inspection %as conducted on
the landholding on the occasion o& %hich, petitioner PN5Hs Credit 0nvestigator already &ound
private respondent Montano staying on the land and even intervie%ed the latter) 0n ans%er to
the questions propounded by said 0nvestigator, private respondent Montano allegedly said
that he had been allo%ed to stay on the property in question because he %as e=ected &rom
the ad=acent parcel o& land %hich he used to till) Dhe land being an agricultural one, and
considering the ocular inspection conducted sometime in !<9 %hen P);) 2< had been in
e&&ect &or some time, petitioner PN5Hs suspicion that the land %as tenanted should have been
aroused by the e,istence o& a &armer on the land other than the mortgagors themselves) 0t
cannot be denied, there&ore, that petitioner PN5 had been put on notice by its actual
6no%ledge o& another person possessing the land, no matter %hat the given reason may have
been &or private respondent MontanoHs occupancy o& the properties in question)
1urthermore, as purchaser at a public auction, petitioner PN5 %as only substituted to and
acquired the right, title, interest and claim o& the =udgment debtor or mortgagor to the
property as o& the time o& the levy)#3$ 0n this case, the only remaining right o& the
mortgagors @spouses Crisanto de la Cru* and Pepita MontanoA at the time o& levy is the right
to be paid a reasonable price &or the land they o%ned as mandated by P);) 2<) Dhat is the
only right %hich petitioner PN5 acquired as the ne% absolute o%ner o& the land)
1rom the &oregoing, it is evident that petitioner PN5 is not entitled to a Erit o& Possession, as
possession o& the land in question has been granted by la% to private respondent Montano as
tenant o& sub=ect landholding)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, =udgment is hereby rendered DE&)I&G the petition)
Costs against petitioner)
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), #elo, and .anganiban, JJ., concur)
avide, Jr., J., did not ta6e part in the deliberation> %as on sic6 leave)
#$ Iatchalian vs) Arlegui, 27384", 1ebruary <, !!<)
#2$ I)R) No) <422:, 2"< +CRA 4:2 @!!2A)
#8$ I)R) No) 998, 2: +CRA "! @!!2A)
#3$ +ec) 8:, Rule 8! o& the Rules o& Court)
1er'as vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. (5%41,
Au.ust 5, 199) 225 SCRA 119
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&1&29
Petitioner Graciano Bernas is before this Court assailing the decision* of the respondent
appellate court dated 19 August 1988 in CA-G.R. SP o. 1!"#9 $CAR%& 'hich re(ersed the
decision** of the Regional )rial Court of Ro*as Cit+& Branch 18& in Ci(il Case o. ,-#1!-
entitled .ati(idad Bito-on /eita& et al. (s. Graciano Bernas.. As disclosed b+ the records and
the e(idence of both parties& the facts in(ol(ed in the contro(ers+ are as follo's0
ati(idad Bito-on /eita is the o'ner of 1ots os. 29!& 831& 8!3 and 8!8 of the Cadastral
Sur(e+ of Pana+& Capi4& 'ith a total area of #&8"1 s5uare 6eters. 7ut of liberalit+& ati(idad
entrusted the lots b+ 'a+ of .dugo. to her brother& Benigno Bito-on& so that he could use the
fruits thereof to defra+ the cost of financing his children8s schooling in 9anila. Prior to April
1928& these agricultural lots had been leased b+ one Ansel6o Billones but follo'ing the
latter8s death and conse5uent ter6ination of the lease& petitioner Graciano Bernas too: o(er
and 'or:ed on the land. Benigno and Bernas 'or:ed out a production-sharing arrange6ent
'hereb+ the first pro(ided for all the e*penses and the second 'or:ed the land& and after
har(est& the t'o $;% deducted said e*penses and di(ided the balance of the har(est bet'een
the t'o of the6. )he o'ner& ati(idad& pla+ed no part in this arrange6ent as she 'as not
pri(+ to the sa6e.
<n 198#& the lots 'ere returned b+ Benigno to his sister ati(idad& as all his children had
b+ then finished their schooling. =hen ati(idad and her husband sought to ta:e o(er
possession of the lots& Bernas refused to relin5uish& clai6ing that he 'as an agricultural
leasehold lessee instituted on the land b+ Benigno and& as such& he is entitled to securit+ of
tenure under the la'.
>aced 'ith this opposition fro6 Bernas& ati(idad filed an action 'ith the Regional )rial
Court for Reco(er+ of Possession& 7'nership and <n?unction 'ith /a6ages. After trial& the
court a 5uo held in fa(or of the defendant $Bernas% and dis6issed the co6plaint& ruling that
fro6 the record and the e(idence presented& notabl+ the testi6on+ of the plaintiff8s o'n
brother Benigno& Bernas 'as indeed a leasehold tenant under the pro(isions of Republic Act
o. 1199 and an agricultural leasehold lessee under Republic Act o. "8!!& ha(ing been so
instituted b+ the usufructuar+ of the land $Benigno%. As such& according to the trial court& his
tenurial rights cannot be disturbed sa(e for causes pro(ided b+ la'.
Aggrie(ed& the plaintiff $ati(idad% appealed to the Court of Appeals& contending that the
.dugo. arrange6ent bet'een her and her brother Benigno 'as not in the nature of a usufruct
$as held b+ the court a 5uo%& but actuall+ a contract of co66odatu6. )his being the case&
Benigno& the bailee in the co66odatu6& could neither lend nor lease the properties loaned&
to a third person& as such relationship $of bailor-bailee% is one of personal character. )his
ti6e& her contentions 'ere sustained& 'ith the respondent appellate court re(ersing the trial
court8s decision& ruling that ha(ing onl+ deri(ed his rights fro6 the usufructuar+@bailee& Bernas
had no better right to the propert+ than the latter 'ho ad6ittedl+ 'as entrusted 'ith the
propert+ onl+ for a li6ited period. >urther& according to the appellate court& there being no
pri(it+ of contract bet'een ati(idad and Bernas& the for6er cannot be e*pected to be bound
b+ or to honor the relationship or tie bet'een Benigno and the latter $Bernas%.
Aence& this petition b+ Bernas.
)he issue for resolution b+ the Court is concisel+ stated b+ the respondent appellate court
as follo's0 'hether the agricultural leasehold established b+ Benigno Bito-on in fa(or of
Graciano Bernas is binding upon the o'ner of the land& ati(idad Bito-on& 'ho disclai6s an+
:no'ledge of& or participation in the sa6e.
<n ruling for the pri(ate respondent $ati(idad%& the respondent appellate court held that0
/0ndeed, no evidence has been adduced to clari&y the nature o& the 'dugo'
transaction bet%een plainti&& and her brother 5enigno 5ito7on) Ehat seems
apparent is that 5enigno 5ito7on %as gratuitously allo%ed to utili*e the land to
help him in &inancing the schooling o& his children) Ehether the transaction is one
o& usu&ruct, %hich right may be leased or alienated, or one o& commodatum, %hich
is purely personal in character, the bene&iciary has the obligation to return the
property upon the e,piration o& the period stipulated, or accomplishment o& the
purpose &or %hich it %as constituted @Art) 42, Art) !34, Civil CodeA) Accordingly,
it is believed that one %ho derives his right &rom the usu&ructuary?bailee, cannot
re&use to return the property upon the e,piration o& the contract) 0n this case,
5enigno 5ito7on returned the property lent to him on May 8, !9: to the o%ners,
the plainti&& herein) Ee do not see ho% the de&endant can have a better right to
the property than 5enigno 5ito7on, %ho admittedly possessed the land &or a
limited period) Dhere is no privity o& contract bet%een the o%ner o& the land and
the cultivator)/#$
At this point& it is appropriate to point out that& contrar+ to the appreciation of the
respondent appellate court& the general la' on propert+ and contracts& e6bodied in the Ci(il
Code of the Philippines& finds no principal application in the present
conflict.Generalibus specialia derogant. )he en(iron6ental facts of the case at bar indicate
that this is not a 6ere case of reco(er+ of o'nership or possession of propert+. Aad this been
so& then the Court 'ould ha(e pere6ptoril+ dis6issed the present petition. )he fact& ho'e(er&
that culti(ated agricultural land is in(ol(ed suffices for the Court to pause and re(ie' the
legislation directl+ rele(ant and applicable at the ti6e this contro(ers+ arose.
<n this regard& it 'ould appear that Republic Act o. 1199& in(o:ed b+ the trial court& had
alread+ been rendered inoperati(e b+ the passage of Republic Act o. "8!!& as a6ended&
other'ise :no'n as the Agricultural 1and Refor6 Code $Code& for bre(it+%. )he for6er& also
:no'n as the Agricultural )enanc+ Act of the Philippines and appro(ed in August 19#! had
sought to establish a s+ste6 of agricultural tenanc+ relations bet'een the tenant and the
landholder& defining t'o $;% s+ste6s of agricultural tenanc+0 the share and the leasehold
tenanc+. At this point& ho'e(er& further discussion of the foregoing 'ould appear futile& for the
Code& enacted in August 19-"& had e*pressl+ declared agricultural share tenanc+ to be
contrar+ to public polic+ and abolished the sa6e. As for leasehold tenanc+ relations entered
into prior to the effecti(it+ of the Code& the rights and obligations arising therefro6 'ere
dee6ed to continue to e*ist until 6odified b+ the parties thereto in accordance 'ith the
pro(isions of the Code.B;C )hus& for all intents and purposes& Republic Act o. "8!!
is the go(erning statute in the petition at bar. )he pertinent pro(isions thereof state as follo's0
/+ec) :) Establishment o& Agricultural 2easehold Relations) 7 Dhe agricultural
leasehold relation shall be established by operation o& la% in accordance %ith
+ection &our o& this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in %riting, e,pressly
or impliedly)
/+ec) 4) Parties to Agricultural 2easehold Relation 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold
relation shall be limited to the person %ho &urnishes the landholding, either as
o%ner, civil la% lessee, usu&ructuary, or legal possessor, and the person %ho
personally cultivates the same) @emphasis suppliedA)
/+ec) <) Denure o& Agricultural 2easehold Relation) Dhe Agricultural 2easehold
Relation once established shall con&er upon the agricultural lessee the right to
continue %or6ing on the landholding until such leasehold relationship is
e,tinguished) Dhe agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security o& tenure on his
landholding and cannot be e=ected there&rom unless authori*ed by the Court &or
causes herein provided) @emphasis suppliedA
/+ec) 9) E,tinguishment o& Agricultural 2easehold Relation) Dhe agricultural
leasehold relation established under this Code shall be e,tinguished by.
@A Abandonment o& the landholding %ithout the 6no%ledge o& the agricultural
lessor>
@2A (oluntary surrender o& the landholding by the agricultural lessee, %ritten
notice o& %hich shall be served three months in advance> or
@8A Absence o& the persons under +ection nine to succeed to the lessee in the
event o& death or permanent incapacity o& the lessee)
, , , , , , , , ,
/+ec) ") Agricultural 2easehold Relation Not E,tinguished by E,piration o& Period,
etc) 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be e,tinguished
by mere e,piration 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 the
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the legal possession o& the
landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)/
, , , , , , , , ,
+ec) 84) Possession o& 2andholding> E,ceptions) 7 Not%ithstanding any agreement
as to the period or &uture surrender o& the land, an agricultural lessee shall
continue in the en=oyment and possession o& his landholding e,cept %hen his
dispossession has been authori*ed by the Court in a =udgment that is &inal and
e,ecutory i& a&ter due hearing it is sho%n that.
@A Dhe agricultural lessor7o%ner or a member o& his immediate &amily %ill
personally cultivate the landholding or %ill convert the landholding, i& suitably
located, into residential, &actory, hospital or school site or other use&ul non7
agricultural purposes.Provided, Dhat the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
disturbance compensation equivalent to &ive years rental on his landholding in
addition to his rights under +ections t%enty7&ive and thirty7&our, e,cept %hen the
land o%ned and leased by the agricultural lessor is not more than &ive hectares, in
%hich case instead o& disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an
advanced notice o& at least one agricultural year be&ore e=ectment proceedings are
&iled against him. Provided, &urther, Dhat should the landholder not cultivate the
land himsel& &or three years or &ail to substantially carry out such conversion %ithin
one year a&ter the dispossession o& the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted
in bad &aith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession o& the land
and recover damages &or any loss incurred by him because o& said dispossession>
#8$
@2A the agricultural lessee &ailed to substantially comply %ith any o& the terms and
conditions o& the contract or any o& the provisions o& this Code unless his &ailure is
caused by &ortuitous event or &orce ma=eure.
@8A the agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding &or a purpose
other than %hat had been previously agreed upon>
@3A the agricultural lessee &ailed to adopt proven &arm practices as determined
under paragraph 8 o& +ection t%enty7nine>
@:A the land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially
damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the &ault or
negligence o& the agricultural lessee>
@4A the agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental %hen it &alls
due. Provided, Dhat i& the nonpayment o& the rental shall be due to crop &ailure to
the e,tent o& seventy7&ive per centum as a result o& a &ortuitous event, the non7
payment shall not be a ground &or dispossession, although the obligation to pay
the rental due that particular crop year, is not thereby e,tinguished> or
@<A the lessee employed a sub7lessee on his landholding in violation o& the terms
o& paragraph 2 o& +ection t%enty seven)
/+ec) 8<) 5urden o& Proo&) 7 Dhe burden o& proo& to sho% the e,istence o& a la%&ul
cause &or the e=ectment o& an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural
lessor)/
)here is no dispute& as it is ad6itted b+ the parties in this case& that Benigno Bito-on 'as
granted possession of the propert+ in 5uestion b+ reason of the liberalit+ of his sister&
ati(idad $the pri(ate respondent%. <n short& he $Benigno% 'as the 1DGA1 P7SSDSS7R of
the propert+ and& as such& he had the authorit+ and capacit+ to enter into an agricultural
leasehold relation 'ith Bernas. Conse5uentl+& there is no need to d'ell on the contentions of
the pri(ate respondent that her brother Benigno 'as not a usufructuar+ of the propert+ but
actuall+ a bailee in co66odatu6. =hate(er 'as the true nature of his designation& he
$Benigno% 'as the 1DGA1 P7SSDSS7R of the propert+ and the la' e*pressl+ grants hi6& as
legal possessor& authorit+ and capacit+ to institute an agricultural leasehold lessee on the
propert+ he legall+ possessed.
<n turn& ha(ing been instituted b+ Benigno as an agricultural leasehold lessee& Bernas is
(ested b+ la' 'ith the rights accruing thereto& including the right to continue 'or:ing the
landholding until such lease is legall+ e*tinguished& and the right to be protected in his tenure
i.e.& not to be e?ected fro6 the land& sa(e for the causes pro(ided b+ la'& and as appropriatel+
deter6ined b+ the courts. <n this connection& there is no clear indication in the record that the
circu6stances or conditions en(isioned in Section "- of Republic Act o. "8!!& as a6ended&
for ter6ination of the agricultural lease relation& ha(e super(ened& and therefore Bernas8 right
to the possession of the propert+ re6ains indisputable. )his conclusion is buttressed b+ Sec.
"2 of the Code 'hich pro(ides that0
/+ec) 8<) 5urden o& Proo&) 7 Dhe burden o& proo& to sho% the e,istence o& a la%&ul
cause &or the e=ectment o& an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural
lessor)/
As to an+ suggestion that the agricultural lease of Bernas 6a+ ha(e ter6inated because
the lando'ner $ati(idad% has decided to culti(ate the land herself& 'e sub6it that this Court
is not in a position to settle this issue in this case& not onl+ because of insufficient e(idence to
deter6ine 'hether or not the grounds pro(ided b+ la' for ter6ination of the agricultural
leasehold relation are present but& 6ore i6portantl+& because the issue of ter6ination of the
agricultural leasehold relationship b+ reason of the lando'ner8s alleged decision to till the land
herself& 'as not s5uarel+ raised nor ade5uatel+ litigated in the trial court.B!C <t 'ill be noted
that 'hile ati(idad in her co6plaint 'ith the court a 5uo alleged& a6ong others& that .on ;3
9a+ 198#& the plaintiffs spouses 'ere alread+ in the process of ta:ing o(er the land b+
e6plo+ing a tractor operator to co66ence plo'ing the land&. this allegation 'as denied b+
Bernas in his ans'er. But the 6ain thrust of ati(idad8s co6plaint 'as that she had no pri(it+
'ith Bernas and that the latter should (acate the land because Benigno $fro6 'ho6 Bernas
had recei(ed his right to possess% had hi6self ceased to ha(e an+ rights to the land. >aced
'ith these allegations& the court a 5uo in its pre-trial order dated 9 Septe6ber 198#
for6ulated the issues in this case& 'ithout ob?ection fro6 the parties& as follo's0
"ISSUES
) 0s de&endant an agricultural leasehold lessee o& the parcels o& land described in
the ComplaintO
2) Ehether the parties are entitled to damages claims by them in their respective
pleadings)/
<n short& the parties 'ent to trial on the 6erits on the basis of the foregoing issues. Pri(ate
respondent did not ob?ect to the abo(e issues as for6ulatedE neither can it be plausibl+
contended no' that the first issue $i.e. 'hether Bernas is an agricultural leasehold lessee%
e6braces the issue of 'hether ati(idad has (alidl+ ter6inated the agricultural leasehold
because of a decision to culti(ate the land herself& since under sec. "-$1% of the Code $before
its a6end6ent b+ Section 2 of Rep. Act o. -"89%& the land-o'ner8s right to ta:e o(er
possession of his land for personal culti(ation ASSF9DS that it is under a (alid and
subsisting agricultural leasehold and he 6ust obtain an order fro6 the court to disposses the
agricultural leasehold lessee 'ho other'ise is entitled to continued use and possession of the
landholding. <n other 'ords& if ati(idad had reall+ intended to raise as an issue that she had
(alidl+ ter6inated Bernas8 agricultural leasehold& she or her counsel could ha(e e*pressl+
included a6ong the issues for deter6ination& the 5uestion of 'hether or not she had co6plied
'ith the re5uire6ents of the la' for dispossessing the agricultural leasehold lessee because
she& as lando'ner& had decided to personall+ culti(ate the landholding. But she did not.
)he trial court in its decision dated ;3 7ctober 1982 $later appealed to the Court of
Appeals% held $consistent 'ith the for6ulated issues in the case% that -
/, , , , , ,
As to issues& parties presented onl+ t'o $;% issues and 'hich are0
) Ehether or not de&endant is an agricultural leasehold lessee o& the parcels o&
land described in the complaint>
2) Ehether the parties are entitled to damages claimed by them in their
respective pleadings)/
@Pre7Drial -rder dated +eptember !, !9:, p) 3 recordsA
and finall+ disposed as follo's0
/1rom the above discussions, this Court opines that de&endant %as a share tenant
on the parcels o& land sub=ect o& the complaint, and an agricultrual leasehold
lessee under the provisions o& the Agricultural 2and Re&orm Code as amended by
Presidential ;ecress on the matter)
No damages as damages %ere proved or established by evidence by the
de&endant)
EBERE1-RE, and in vie% o& the above considerations, a decision is rendered
dismissing plainti&&s complaint, and declaring de&endant as the agricultural
leasehold lessee on 2ot Nos) <!3, 9", 93" and 939 o& the Cadastral +urvey o&
Panay, Capi*, %ith an area o& :,98 square meters, situated at Calitan, Panay,
Capi*, %ith security o& tenure as an Agricultural 2easehold 2essee thereo&> and &or
plainti&&s to pay the costs o& the suit)/
<n the Court of Appeals& the litigated issue 'as -
/, , , , , ,
Dhe legal issue that presents itsel& is %hether the agricultural leashold established
by 5enigno 5ito7on %as binding upon the o%ner o& the land, plainti&& Natividad
5ito7on, %ho disclaims 6no%ledge o& any arrangement %ith de&endant 5ernas) Dhe
lo%er court held that the 'dugo' arrangement %as in the nature o& usu&ruct, and
that the act o& the usu&ructuary as legal possessor %as su&&icient to establish
tenancy relations)
, , , , , ,)/ #:$
)he long settled rule in this ?urisdiction is that a part+ is not allo'ed to change his theor+
of the case or his cause of action on appeal.B-C =e ha(e pre(iousl+ held that .courts of ?ustice
ha(e no ?urisdiction or po'er to decide a 5uestion not in issue.B2C and that a ?udg6ent going
outside the issues and purporting to ad?udicate so6ething upon 'hich the parties 'ere not
heard is not 6erel+ irregular& but e*tra?udicial and in(alid.B8C )he rule is based on the
funda6ental tenets of fair pla+ and& in the present case& the Court is properl+ co6pelled not to
go be+ond the issue litigated in the court a 5uo and in the Court of
Appeals of 'hether or not the petitioner& Graciano
Bernas& is an agricultural leasehold lessee b+ (irtue of his installation as such b+ Benigno Bito
-on& the legal possessor of the landholding at the ti6e Bernas 'as so installed and& conse5ue
ntl+ entitled to securit+ of tenure on the land. Should grounds for the dispossession of Bernas&
as an agricultural leasehold lessee& subse5uentl+ arise& then and onl+ then can the pri(ate
respondent $land o'ner% initiate a separate action to dispossess the lessee& and in that
separate action& she 6ust allege and pro(e co6pliance 'ith Sec. "-$1% of the Code 'hich
consist of& a6ong others& a one +ear ad(ance notice to the agricultural leasehold lessee $the
land in(ol(ed being less than # hectares% and readiness to pa+ hi6 the da6ages re5uired
also b+ the Code.
)he issue of 'hether or not Bernas planted crops or used the land in a
6anner contrar+ to 'hat 'as agreed upon bet'een ati(idad and Benigno& and thereb+
constituting a ground for ter6inating the leasehold relationship under Sec. "-& par. " of Rep.
Act o. "8!! li:e'ise cannot be passed upon b+ this Court since the issue 'as ne(er raised
before the courts belo'. >urther6ore& there is no sho'ing that ati(idad and Benigno agreed
that onl+ certain t+pes of crops could be planted on the land. =hat is clear is& that the .dugo.
arrange6ent 'as 6ade so that Benigno could use the produce of the land to pro(ide for the
schooling of his children. )he alleged con(ersion b+ Bernas of the land to riceland 'as 6ade
necessar+ for the land to produce 6ore and thus 6eet the needs of Benigno. <t 'as
consistent 'ith the purpose of 6a:ing the land 6ore producti(e that Benigno installed an
agricultural lessee. <t 6a+ be recalled that 'hen ati(idad called on Benigno to testif+ as a
'itness& he stated that the produce of the land 'as gi(en to hi6 b+ Bernas to defra+ the
e*penses of his children $p. "& trial court decision%. )he ine(itable conclusion is
therefore not that there 'as use of the land different fro6 the purpose for 'hich it 'as
allegedl+ intended b+ ati(idad and Benigno but rather that the installation of the agricultural
lessee 'as 6ade necessar+ so that the land could produce 6ore to better ser(e the needs of
the beneficiar+ $Benigno%.
Additionall+& it can be stated that the agricultural leasehold relationship in this case 'as
created bet'een Benigno as agricultural lessor-legal possessor& on the one hand& and Bernas
as agricultural leasehold lessee& on the other. )he agricultural leashold relationship
'as not bet'een ati(idad and Bernas. As Sec. - of the Code states0
/+ec) 4) Parties to Agricultural 2easehold Relations 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold
relations shall be limited to the person %ho &urnishes the landholding, either as
o%ner, civil la% lessee, usu&ructuary, or legal possessor, and the person %ho
personally cultivates the same)/ @emphasis suppliedA
)here 'as& as ad6itted b+ all& no pri(it+ or tie bet'een ati(idad and Bernas. )herefore&
e(en if Bernas had i6properl+ used the lots as ricelands& it 'as Benigno 'ho could ha(e
ob?ected thereto since it 'as his $the legal possessor8s% landholding that 'as being
.i6properl+. used. But he $Benigno% did not. <t is not for ati(idad $as lando'ner% to no'
co6plain that Bernas used the land .for a purpose other than 'hat had been pre(iousl+
agreed upon.. Bernas had no agree6ent 'ith her as to the purpose for 'hich the land 'as to
be used. )hat the+ 'ere con(erted into ricelands $also for agricultural production% can onl+
6ean that the sa6e $con(ersion% 'as appro(ed b+ Benigno $the undisputed agricultural
lessor-legal possessor%. <t is thus clear that sec. "-& par " of the Code cannot be used to e?ect
Bernas.
)he Court 6ust& in our (ie'& :eep in 6ind the polic+ of the State e6bodied in the
funda6ental la' and in se(eral special statutes& of pro6oting econo6ic and social stabilit+ in
the countr+side b+ (esting the actual tillers and culti(ators of the soil& 'ith rights to the
continued use and en?o+6ent of their landholdings until the+ are (alidl+ dispossessed in
accordance 'ith la'. At this stage in the countr+8s land refor6 progra6& the agricultural
lessee8s right to securit+ of tenure 6ust be .fir6ed-up. and not negated b+ inferences fro6
facts not clearl+ established in the record nor litigated in the courts belo'. Aand in hand 'ith
diffusion of o'nership o(er agricultural lands& it is sound public polic+ to encourage and
endorse a diffusion of agricultural land use in fa(or of the actual tillers and culti(ators of the
soil. <t is one effecti(e 'a+ in the de(elop6ent of a strong and independent 6iddle-class in
societ+.
<n confir6ation 'e belie(e of the foregoing (ie's& Section "- of Rep. Act o. "8!! $the
Code% 'as e*pressl+ a6ended b+ Section 2 of Rep. Act. o. -"89 'hich replaced paragraph
1& Section "- of the Code pro(iding for personal culti(ation b+ the lando'ner as a ground for
e?ect6ent or dispossession of the agricultural leasehold lessee 'ith the follo'ing pro(ision0
Sec. 2. Section "- $1% of the sa6e Code is hereb+ a6ended to read as follo's0
@A Dhe landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation o&
the National Planning Commission to be suited &or residential, commercial,
industrial or some other urban purposes. Provided, Dhat the agricultural lessee
shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to &ive times the average
o& the gross harvest o& his landholding during the last &ive preceding calendar
years>/
=hile it is true that in the case of Ancheta (s. Court of Appeals& ;33 SCRA !32& the Court
stated that0
/0t is %ell settled that RA 489!, %hich removed personal cultivation as a ground &or
e=ectment o& tenant?lessee, cannot be given retroactive e&&ect in the absence o&
statutory provision &or retroactivity or a clear implication o& the la% to that e&&ect)/
ho'e(er& Rep. Act o. -"89 'as appro(ed on 13 Septe6ber 1921 .B9C )he co6plaint in this
case 'as filed on ;1 Gune 198# or long after the appro(al of Rep. Act o. -"89. B+ reason of
the pro(ision therein eli6inating personal culti(ation b+ the lando'ner as a ground for
e?ect6ent or dispossession of the agricultural leasehold lessee& an+ issue of 'hether or not
the Court of Appeals decision should nonetheless be affir6ed because the lando'ner had
sho'n her intention or decided to personall+ culti(ate the land $assu6ing 'ithout ad6itting
that the issue 'as properl+ raised before the trial court%& had in fact beco6e 6oot and
acade6ic $e(en before it 'as h+potheticall+ raised%. )he issue had been resol(ed b+
legislation un6ista:abl+ against the lando'ner.
<t 6a+ of course be argued that .she $ati(idad% did not authori4e her brother $Benigno%
to install a tenant thereon.. $)S& 1" >ebruar+ 198-& p. -%.
D(en if there 'as a lac: of authori4ation $fro6 ati(idad% for Benigno to install a tenant& it
still follo's& in our (ie'& that Benigno as legal possessor of the landholding& could install an
agricultural lessee on the landholding. >or& as defined in Section 1-- $"% of the Code& an
agricultural lessor is a natural or ?uridical person 'ho& either as o'ner& ci(il la' lessee&
usufructuar+ or legal possessor lets or grants to another the culti(ation and use of his land for
a price certain. othing in said section& it 'ill be noted& re5uires that the ci(il la' lessee&
usufructuar+ or legal possessor should ha(e the prior authori4ation of the lando'ner in order
to let or grant to another the culti(ation or use of the landholding.
Another 5uestion co6es up0 did ati(idad e*pressl+ prohibit Benigno fro6
installing a tenant on the landH othing in the e(idence sho's that Benigno 'as e*pressl+
prohibited b+ ati(idad fro6 installing a tenant on the landholding. And e(en if there 'as an
e*press prohibition on the part of ati(idad $lando'ner% for Benigno not to install an
agricultural leasehold lessee& it is to be noted that an+ such arrange6ent $prohibition% 'as
solel+ bet'een ati(idad and Benigno. )here is no e(idence to sho' that Bernas 'as a'are
or infor6ed of an+ such arrange6ent bet'een ati(idad and Benigno. either 'as such
arrange6ent $prohibition%& if an+& recorded in the registr+ of deeds to ser(e as notice to third
persons $as Bernas% and to the 'hole 'orld for that 6atter. Conse5uentl+& if there 'as indeed
such a prohibition $'hich is not borne out b+ the records% i6posed b+ ati(idad on Benigno& a
(iolation thereof 6a+ gi(e rise to a cause of action for ati(idad against Benigno but Bernas
is no less an agricultural leasehold lessee& for the la' $Section 1-- $;% of the Code% defines
an agricultural lessee as a person 'ho b+ hi6self and 'ith the help a(ailable fro6 'ithin his
i66ediate far6 household culti(ates the land belonging to or possessed b+ another $in this
case Benigno% 'ith the latter8s consent for purposes of production for a price certain in 6one+
or in produce or both.
Ponce (s. Gue(arra& 1-19-;9 and 1-19-2;-9;& "1 9arch 19#! $13 SCRA -!9% pro(ides
dra6atic support to the securit+ of tenure of Bernas in the case at bar. <n the Ponce case& the
o'ner $Ponce% had leased his agricultural land to /onato $the lessee% for a stipulated period
'ith a pro(ision in the lease contract prohibiting /onato fro6 sub-leasing the land 'ithout the
'ritten consent of the o'ner $Ponce%. ot'ithstanding this .e*press prohibition.& /onato sub-
leased the land 'ithout the consent of Ponce $the o'ner%. =hen the lease contract e*pired&
/onato returned the land to Ponce but the sub-lessees $tenants% refused to (acate& clai6ing
securit+ of tenure under the tenanc+ la's then enforced. 7ne of the contentions of Ponce $the
o'ner% in see:ing to disposses the sub-lessees $tenants% 'as that these tenants entered into
possession of the land under a (iolation of the lease contract b+ /onato $the lessee%.
7(er-ruling the abo(e contention& this Court held0
/0t is true that the subleasing o& said land to respondents herein @tenantsA %ithout
the %ritten consent o& the petitioner @o%nerA, constituted a violation o& the original
contract o& lease) Dhe breach o& contract %as committed, ho%ever, by ;onato @the
lesseeA, ,),),/
7f course& in the sa6e Ponce case& the Court obser(ed that Ponce rene'ed his lease
contract for another +ear 'ith /onato& :no'ing at the ti6e of such rene'al that the land had
been sub-leased to the tenants& thereb+ in?ecting the principle of estoppel against Ponce (is-
a-(is the tenants. But& as 'e (ie' it& the ratio decidendi in the Court8s decision is to the effect
that the sub-lessees $tenants% 'ere entitled to securit+ of tenure on the land the+ 'ere
culti(ating& not'ithstanding the undisputed fact that the+ beca6e sub-lessees $tenants% of the
land as a result of a (iolation b+ the lessee $/onato% of an e*press pro(ision in the lease
contract prohibiting hi6 fro6 sub-leasing the land.
=hat 6ore in the case of Bernas 'hose right to securit+ of tenure as an agricultural
leasehold lessee is conferred and protected categoricall+& positi(el+ and clearl+ b+ the
pro(isions of the Code $Republic Act. "8!!%H
<t is of course possible to contrue Sec. - of the Code 'hich pro(ides0
/+ec) 4) Parties to Agricultural 2easehold Relations) 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold
relation shall be limited to the person %ho &urnishes the landholding, either as
o%ner, civil la% lessee, usu&ructuary, or legal possessor, and the person %ho
personally cultivates the same) @emphasis suppliedA)/
in the follo'ing 6anner0
/, , , it assumes that there is already an e,isting agricultural leasehold relation,
i)e) a tenant or agricultural lessee already %or6s the land) As may be gleaned &rom
the epigraph o& +ec) 4, it merely states %ho are /Parties to Agricultural 2easehold
Relations,/ %hich means that there is already a leasehold tenant on the land) 5ut
this is precisely %hat Ee are still as6ed to determine in these proceedings)/
@dissenting opinion, p) A
<t 'ould appear fro6 the abo(e interpretation of Sec. - of the Code that in the absence of
a ?udicial deter6ination or declaration of an agricultural leasehold relation& such relation does
not or cannot e(en e*ist. =e (ie' this posture as incorrect for an agricultural leasehold
relationship e*ists b+ operation of la' 'hen there is a concurrence of an agricultural lessor
and an agricultural lessee. As clearl+ stated in Section # of the Code0
/+ec) :) Establishment o& Agricultural 2easehold Relations) 7 Dhe agricultural
leasehold relation shall be established by operation o& la% in accordance %ith
+ection &our o& this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in %riting, e,pressly
or impliedly)/
<n other 'ords& in the case at bar& fro6 the 6o6ent Benigno& as legal possessor $and&
therefore& an agicultural lessor% granted the culti(ation and use of the landholding to Bernas in
e*change or consideration for a sharing in the har(est& an agricultural leasehold relationship
e6erged bet'een the6 .b+ operation of la'..
)he fact that the transfer fro6 ati(idad to Benigno 'as gratuitous& 'e belie(e& is of no
conse5uence as far as the nature and status of Benigno8s possession of the landholding is
concerned. Ae beca6e the legal possessor thereof fro6 the (ie'point of the Code. And as
legal possessor& he had the right and authorit+& also under the Code& to install or institute an
agricultural leasehold lessee on his landholding& 'hich 'as e*actl+ 'hat he did& i.e. install
Bernas as an agricultural leasehold lessee.
)he argu6ent that Benigno8s $and conse5uentl+& Bernas8% possession 'as 6eant to last
for a li6ited period onl+& 6a+ appeal to logic& but it finds no support in the Code 'hich has its
o'n underl+ing public polic+ to pro6ote. >or Section 2 of the Code pro(ides0
/+ec) <) Denure o& Agricultural 2easehold Relation) Dhe Agricultural 2easehold
Relation once established shall con&er upon the agricultural lessee the right to
continue %or6ing on the landholding until such leasehold relationship is
e,tinguished) Dhe agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security o& tenure on his
landholding and cannot be e=ected there&rom unless authori*ed by the Court &or
causes herein provided) @emphasis suppliedA
'hile Section 13 of the Code pro(ides0
+ec) ") Agricultural 2easehold Relation Not E,tinguished by E,piration o& Period,
etc) 7 Dhe agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be
e,tinguished by mere e,piration 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 the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or trans&ers the legal possession o& the
landholding, the purchaser or trans&eree thereo& shall be subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligations o& the agricultural lessor)/ @emphasis suppliedA)
and Section "- of the Code pro(ides0
/Possession o& 2andholding> E,ceptions) 7 Not%ithstanding any agreement as to
the period or &uture surrender o& the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in
the en=oyment and possession o& his landholding , , ,)/ @emphasis suppliedA
Clearl+& the return of legal possession fro6 Benigno to ati(idad cannot pre?udice the
rights of Bernas as an agricultural leasehold lessee. )he grounds for e?ect6ent of an
agricultural leasehold lessee are pro(ided for b+ la'. )he enu6eration is e*clusi(e and no
other grounds can ?ustif+ ter6ination of the lease. )he polic+ and letter of the la' are clear on
this point.
)he relati(el+ s6all area of the agricultural landholding in(ol(ed $a little o(er half a
hectare% 'ould appear& in our (ie'& to be of no conse5uence in this case. Aere& the issue is
not ho' 6uch area 6a+ be retained in o'nership b+ the land o'ner ati(idad but the issue is
'hether Bernas is a dul+ constituted agricultural leasehold lessee of the agricultural
landholding $regardless of its area% and entitled to securit+ of tenure therein. And& as
abundantl+ sho'n& the Code is definitel+ and clearl+ on his side of this issue.
<t should be pointed out that the report and reco66endation of the in(estigating officer of
the 9inistr+ of Agrarian Refor6 $9AR% finding that Bernas is not an agricultural leasehold
lessee should deser(e little consideration. <t should be stressed& in this connection& that said
report and reco66endation is congenitall+ defecti(e because -
a. <t 'as based solel+ on the e(idence presented b+ ati(idad& Bernas did not participate in
said in(estigation.
b. the findings in the report are not supported b+ la' or ?urisprudence but are 6erel+ the
opinion and conclusions of the in(estigator 'hose :no'ledge of the Code and the case
la' appears to be sadl+ inade5uate.
c. 'hether or not an agricultural leasehold relation e*ists in an+ case is basicall+ a 5uestion
of la' and cannot be left to the deter6ination or opinion of a 9AR-in(estigator on the
basis of one-sided e(idence.
)his Court has ruled in Iua (. Court of Appeals& 198 SCRA ;"- that --
/, , , as regards relations bet%een litigants in land cases, the &indings and
conclusions o& the +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm, being preliminary in nature, are
not in any %ay binding on the trial courts %hich must endeavor to arrive at their
o%n independent conclusions)/
)he ruling finds support in the case of Gra4a (. CA $1-" SCRA "9% citing Section 1; of P/
o. 9!- e*pressl+ stating that .)he preli6inar+ deter6ination of the relationship bet'een the
contending parties b+ the Secretar+ of Agrarian Refor6 or his authori4ed representati(e& is
not binding upon the court& ?udge or hearing officer to 'ho6 the case is certified as a proper
case for trial. Said court& ?udge or hearing officer& after hearing& 6a+ confir6& re(erse or
6odif+ said preli6inar+ deter6ination as the e(idence and substantial 6erits of the case 6a+
'arrant.. )he court a 5uo in the case at bar tried the case on the 6erits& recei(ing the
e(idence of both parties and arri(ed at a conclusion different fro6 that of the 9AR
in(estigator. <t is to be noted that e(en the Court of Appeals $'hich decided for ati(idad%
found no use for the 9AR in(estigator8s report and reco66endation& for ob(ious reasons. <t is
clear that the 5uestion of the e*istence of an agricultural leasehold relationship
is a 5uestion of la' 'hich is properl+ 'ithin the pro(ince of the courts.
)he certification of the President of the Agrarian Refor6 Beneficiaries Association& Pana+
chapter .issued upon the re5uest of 9rs. /eita. $6eaning ati(idad% that Bernas is not in the
6asterlist of tenants& should li:e'ise be disregarded. Since 'hen& it 6a+ be noted& 'as the
legal 5uestion of agricultural leasehold relationship 6ade to depend on a certification of such
an association8s presidentH
)he argu6ent that Bernas is not a la'ful tenant of ati(idad based on the doctrine in the
case of 1asti6o4a (. Blanco $1 SCRA ;"1% is also not correct. )he cited case does not
support the desired conclusion. <n the 1asti6o4a case& a certain estor Panada had an oral
contract of tenanc+ 'ith a certain Perfecto Gallego 'ho 'as then in possession of the parcel
of land. )he latter ho'e(er 'as e?ected after the Court of >irst <nstance ruled in a land
registration proceeding that it 'as 1asti6o4a 'ho 'as the true o'ner of the land. )he Court
in effect ruled that Gallego 'as an unla'ful possessor and thus Panada cannot be a la'ful
tenant. )he factual bac:ground of the 1asti6o4a case and the present Bernas case are totall+
differentE the first case cannot be applied to the second. =hen Bernas 'as instituted b+
Benigno as an agricultural lessee& Benigno 'as a legal possessor of the landholding in
5uestion. o one can dispute this.
)he dissenting opinion states that .* * it is not correct to sa+ that e(er+ legal possessor&
be he a usufructuar+& or a bailee& is authori4ed as a 6atter of right to e6plo+ a tenant. Ais
possession can be li6ited b+ agree6ent of the parties or b+ operation of la'.. $p. 1"% D(en
assu6ing arguendo that this is a correct legal state6ent& there is absolutel+ no sho'ing that
the possession of Benigno 'as li6ited b+ his agree6ent 'ith ati(idad $as to prohibit hi6
fro6 instituting a tenant% or b+ operation of la'E and because there is a total failure to
dispro(e and e(en dispute that Benigno 'as a legal possessor at the ti6e Bernas 'as
installed b+ hi6 as an agricultural lessee& then Bernas (alidl+ beca6e an agricultural
leasehold lessee of the land and is thus protected b+ the la' fro6 e?ect6ent e*cept for
causes specified therein.
>inall+& in relation to the dissenting opinion& it 6a+ be 'ise to repeat the state6ent of the
Court in Gose /. 1ina& Gr. (s. <sidro Carino $G.R. o. 1331;2& ;" April 199"% thus -
/Dhe Court believes that petitioner's argument 77 cogent though it may be as a
social and economic comment 77 is most appropriately addressed, not to a court
%hich must ta6e the la% as it is actually %ritten, but rather to the legislative
authority %hich can, i& it %ishes, change the language and content o& the la%)/
@emphasis suppliedA
<n the case at bar& the language& polic+ and intent of the la' are clearE this Court cannot
interpose its o'n (ie's as to alter the6. )hat 'ould be ?udicial legislation.
WHEREFORE the petition is GRA)D/. )he decision of the respondent appellate court
is RD,DRSD/ and SD) AS</D and that of the Regional )rial Court RD<S)A)D/. Costs
against the pri(ate respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Cru), !idin, -riKo'%Buino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, and Luiason, JJ., concur)
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, avide, Jr., and #elo, JJ., =oin J. !ellosillo, in his dissenting opinion)
.uno and Jitug, JJ., no part)
* Penned b+ 96e. Gustice 9iner(a P. Gon4aga-Re+es and concurred in b+ Gustices Serafin D. Ca6ilon and
Pedro A. Ra6ire4.
** Penned b+ Gudge Gonas A. Abellar.
B1C Rollo& p. ;;
B;C Section !& Republic Act o. "8!!
B"C )his paragraph of Section "-& Republic Act o. "8!! has been e*pressl+ a6ended b+ Section 2& Republic
Act o. -"89& to be discussed later.
B!C Pre-)rial 7rder& 9 Septe6ber 198#& p. ;E 7riginal Records& p. !1E )rial Court /ecision& ;3 7ctober 1982& pp.
;-"
B#C Rollo& p. ;;
B-C orthern 9otors& <nc. vs. Prince 1ine& et al.& G.R. o. 1-1"88!& ;9 >ebruar+ 19-3& 132 Phil. ;#"
B2C ,ia?ar vs. Court of Appeals& G.R. o. 22;9!& 1; /ece6ber 1988& 1-8 SCRA !3#& !11
B8C ,ia?ar vs. Court of Appeals& supra. citing Sal(ante vs. Cru4& G.R. o. 1-;#"1& ;8 >ebruar+ 19#1& 88 Phil. ;"-
B9C Published in the 7fficial Ga4ette on "1 Ganuar+ 192;

BELLOSILLO, J.:
)his 6a+ be a faint echo in the 'ilderness but it is the 5uaint (oice of a 'o6an +earning
for ?ustice fro6 this court of last resort.)he 6a?orit+ opinion 'ould lea(e her alone 'here she
is& to 'allo' in her o'n 6iser+& and despite her long and 'inding tra(ails - all for the lo(e of a
brother in need - there is no light at the end of the tunnel. )here is no relief in sight for her
plight. Aer onl+ fault 'as to lend her four $!% s6all parcels of land to her brother so that the
latter could use the fruits thereof for the education of his children in 9anila. o'& she cannot
get the6 bac: because her brother allo'ed his brother-in-la'& 'ho no' clai6s securit+ of
tenure as tenant& to 'or: the lands.
=orse& the brother-in-la' continues to culti(ate the landholdings& e(en con(erting the
orchards into ricelands as though the+ 'ere his o'n and constructing a house of strong
6aterials thereon& 'ithout pa+ing an+ rentJ
Before see:ing ?udicial relief& pri(ate respondent 'ent to the 9inistr+ of Agrarian Refor6
$9AR% as re5uired b+ la'&B1C and obtained a fa(orable finding that there 'as no tenanc+
relationship bet'een her and her brother8s brother-in-la'. But the courts belo' disregarded
this i6portant piece of e(idence 'hich spea:s elo5uentl+ of the 6erit of her cause. 9AR
certified that petitioner 'as not a tenant of pri(ate respondent& hence& the case 'as proper for
trial.
)he finding of 9AR 'as confir6ed b+ the Agrarian Refor6 Beneficiaries Association
$ARBA% 'hen its President certified after an in(estigation that petitioner did not appear in the
9aster 1ist of tenant beneficiaries of the baranga+. D(en his older brother& the baranga+
captain& after conducting his o'n in(estigation& refused to certif+ that petitioner 'as a tenant
of the holdings of pri(ate respondent.
<s pri(ate respondent indeed bereft of an+ re6ed+ in la' to reco(er possession of her
landholdings - she 'ho did not e6plo+ petitioner nor authori4e an+one to e6plo+ hi6 as
tenant on her landE she 'ho is not e(en paid an+ rent b+ petitioner for the use of her
landholdingsE she 'hose landholdings ha(e been con(erted b+ petitioner fro6 orchards to
ricelands and on 'hich he constructed a house of strong 6aterials& both 'ithout first securing
authorit+ fro6 herH Fnder the circu6stances& 'e can onl+ hope that posterit+ 'ill not
conde6n us for the fate of pri(ate respondent and the 6an+ others 'ho 6a+ be si6ilarl+
situated.
9+ conscience pro6pts 6e to dissent fro6 the 6a?orit+ opinion and to (ote for the
affir6ance of the decision of the Court of Appeals& not necessaril+ on the basis of its rationale&
but 6ainl+ because < do not subscribe to the (ie' that a usufructuar+ or legal possessor
under Sec. -& R.A. "8!!& as a6ended& is auto6aticall+ authori4ed to e6plo+ a tenant 'ithout
the consent of the lando'ner. >or& the right to hire a tenant is basicall+ a personal right of a
lando'ner& e*cept as 6a+ be pro(ided b+ la'. But& certainl+& no'here in Sec. - of R.A. "8!!
does it sa+ that a legal possessor of a landholding is auto6aticall+ authori4ed to install a
tenant thereon.
ati(idad Bito-on /eita o'ns 1ots 29!& 831& 8!3 and 8!8 of the Cadastral Sur(e+ of
Pana+& Capi4. 1ots 29! and 831& 'ith areas of 9!" s5uare 6eters $D*h. .C.% and 8## s5uare
6eters $D*h. .B.%& respecti(el+& are coconut landsE 1ot 8!3& 'ith an area of 1&333 s5uare
6eters $D*h. ./.%& is planted to bananas& 'hile 1ot 8!8& 'ith an area of 1&1!- s5uare 6eters
$D*h. .A.%& is riceland. 1ot 8!3 'as the o'nerKs ho6elot on 'hich stood before the fa6il+
ho6e. Although the trial court found that the total area of the four $!% lots& 'hich are not
contiguous& 'as #&8"1 s5uare 6eters& a closer e*a6ination of their ta* declarations $D*hs.
.A. to ./.% re(eals that their total producti(e area is onl+ "&8!! s5uare 6eters& 'hich can be
s6aller than a residential lot in a plush (illage in 9etro 9anila.
After ati(idad reco(ered these lots fro6 a for6er tenant in April 1928& she entrusted
the6 to her brother& Benigno Bito-on& so that the latter 6a+ be able to support the education
of his children in 9anila.B;C She did not authori4e her brother to install a tenant thereon.
B"C After successfull+ retrie(ing a landholding fro6 a tenant at that ti6e& no lando'ner in his
right 6ind 'ould gi(e his land in tenanc+ again to a(oid the operation of P./. ;2& then at its
pea: and dreaded b+ lando'ners as an un?ust depri(ation of propert+ rights.
)hereafter& 'ithout the :no'ledge& 6uch less consent& of ati(idad& Benigno entered into
so6e arrange6ent 'ith his brother-in-la'& Graciano Bernas& to 'or: the lands. But ati(idad
'as una'are of this arrange6ent as she 'as sta+ing in 9anila 'here her husband 'as then
e6plo+ed. <t 'as not until the latter8s retire6ent and the return of the fa6il+ to Pana+& Capi4&
that she learned that Graciano 'as alread+ 'or:ing the lands& con(erting 1ots 29!& 831 and
8!3 into ricelands& and constructing on 1ot 8!3 a house of concrete hollo' bloc:s.
<t bears e6phasi4ing that the transfer of possession bet'een ati(idad and
Benigno 'as not coupled 'ith an+ considerationE rather& it 'as pure 6agnani6it+ on the part
of ati(idad on account of her .dugo. or blood relation 'ith Benigno& 'hich Att+. Aer6inio R.
Pelobello& )rial Attorne+ << and 9AR <n(estigating 7fficer& e*plains -
.A 8/FG78 s+ste6 is a personal grant of pri(ilege and a pri(ilege personall+
granted cannot be delegated or e*tended to so6eone else but $is% personal $in%
nature. 7nce the 8/FG78 grantee or trustee returns the sub?ect 6atter of 8/FG78&
the relationship is ter6inated * * * * <n this instance& D*h. 8D8 is an e*pressi(e
docu6entar+ e(idence of return of 8/FG78 propert+ b+ constructi(e 6ode of
returning of possession& use and en?o+6ent of propert+E sa6e therefore deser(es
credence to the e*clusion of an+ interested person in tillage therein..
7n 1" 9a+ 198#& his children ha(ing finished schooling in 9anila& Benigno returned
possession of the propert+ to ati(idad& in faithful co6pliance 'ith their agree6ent. Ao'e(er&
Graciano refused to (acate the pre6ises clai6ing at first that he 'as installed thereon b+
Benigno& although after Benigno denied this allegation& petitioner changed his theor+ b+
presenting 9onica. Bernales Bito-on& 'ife of Benigno& to testif+ that she 'as the ci(il la'
lessee 'ho installed Graciano on the lands. )his& despite the cru* of the e(idence spread on
record that it 'as. Benigno Bito-on 'ho 'as gi(en the ph+sical possession of the lands b+ his
sister ati(idad& and not 9onica 'ho is onl+ her sister-in-la'. <ncidentall+& 9onica is the sister
of the 'ife of Graciano Bernas.
7n 12 9a+ 198#& fa4ed b+ the refusal of Graciano to (acate& ati(idad filed a letter-
petitionB!C 'ith the 9inistr+ of Agrarian Refor6 $9AR% see:ing clarification of the actual status
of Graciano (is-a-(is her landholdings. Accordingl+& Graciano 'as su66oned at least three
$"% ti6es but the latter refused to attend the scheduled hearings. Conse5uentl+& Att+. Aer6inio
R. Pelobello& 'ho 'as assigned to the case& conducted his in(estigation and thereafter issued
a resolutionB#C sustaining the co6plaint of ati(idad Bito-on /ieta and concluding& a6ong
others& that -
.* * * out of petitioner8s bene(olence& generosit+ and pit+ on his elder brother8s
financial hardship& she had the aforesaid lots entrusted to her brother in the nature
of 8/FG78 so that $the% latter then possessed the land and en?o+$ed% the * * * fruits
thereon for the abo(e purpose beginning the +ear 1928 up to ;nd crop of 198#E
that upon the surrender or gi(ing bac: in her fa(or of the land sub?ect of 8/FG78
there no' appears the respondent clai6ing to be the tenant-tiller on the land 'ho
'ould not relin5uish the land in her fa(or alleging and contending to ha(e been
instituted b+ 9onica Bernales 'ho is his sister-in-la'.
* * * *
.<t is obser(ed in this letter-petition $that% >ilipino fa6il+ adhered and obser(ed
solidarit+& s+6path+ and pit+ b+ e*tending financial help of $to% a close relati(e b+
consanguinit+. Apparentl+ under the circu6stance& the 8/FG78 trustee for the
benefit of his school children in 9anila is Benigno Bito-on * * * * Petitioner feeling
6orall+ bound * * * 6ade the institution of 8/FG78 relationship a6ong the6 in
order to contribute a solution thereof. But ulti6atel+ after the ;nd cropping of 198#
and after the school children of Benigno Bito-on had graduated in college& he
returned the propert+ to petitioner as e(idenced b+ D*h. 8D8.
.o' co6es to the surprise of petitioner& the respondent spring$s% out and
assert$s% his alleged right to tillage so as to pre(ent lando'ner to repossess the
land sub?ect of 8/FG78 upon return 'hich is co-ter6inous 'ith period thereof.
.7n such core& no la' or ?urisprudence recogni4es the right of respondent. Be that
as it 6a+& as no' happens& 'ith Benigno Bito-on nor his 'ife ati(idad $9onica%
Bernas 'as legall+ authori4ed to institute so6ebod+ to be tenant-tiller under the
circu6stance of 8/FG78 * * * so as to be entitled to in(o:e an+ right or pri(ilege
under our Agrarian 1a's.
* * * *
.< ,<D= 7> )AD >7RDG7<G C7S</DRA)<7S& it is no' the honest opinion
of the undersigned to reco66end as it is hereb+ reco66ended that the petitioner&
ati(idad Bito-on /eita& be entitled to the possession& use and en?o+6ent of the
lots sub?ect of 8/FG78& and further& that the respondent constructi(el+ and actuall+
deli(ers to her the sa6e lots indicated in this resolution& upon receipt of cop+
hereof..
)he foregoing resolution of the 9AR <n(estigating 7fficer 6a+ not be 'ell crafted& but it is
e*pressi(e of his finding that Graciano Bernas 'as not a tenant-tiller and& conse5uentl+& it
reco66ended that .the petitioner& ati(idad Bito-on /eita& be entitled to the possession& use
and en?o+6ent of the lots sub?ect of 8/FG78& and further& that the respondent $Graciano
Bernas% constructi(el+ and actuall+ deli(ers to her the sa6e lots indicated in this resolution *
* * *L concluding that .no la' or ?urisprudence recogni4es the right of respondent..
=hile ati(idad 'ent through the nor6al legal procedure to obtain relief& Graciano
refused to attend the for6al in(estigation and hearing conducted b+ the 9AR& 6uch less
heed its reco66endation. <f Graciano 'as a la'-abiding citi4en and belie(ed that the la' 'as
on his side& he should ha(e sub6itted to the fact-finding in(estigation b+ an ad6inistrati(e
agenc+ pursuant to la'.
7n ;! 9a+ 198#& a 6ediation conference bet'een ati(idad and Graciano 'as held at
the residence of Bg+. Captain >elipe Bernas& older brother of Graciano& but it also pro(ed
fruitless as Graciano continued to refuse to (acate sub?ect landholdings. )o top it all& Bg+.
Captain Bernas sided 'ith Graciano and refused to issue a certification as re5uired under
P./. 1#38. <f Graciano 'as indeed a tenant of the landholdings& his older brother could ha(e
easil+ issued the re5uired certification.
Conse5uentl+& the certification had to be issued b+ Sulpicio Bering& ARBA President&
Pana+ Chapter&B-C dated ;2 9a+ 198#& at Baranga+ Calitan& Pana+& Capi4& 'hich confir6ed
the factual findings of the 9AR <n(estigating 7fficer -
.)his is to certif+ that undersigned in his capacit+ as President of Agrarian Refor6
Beneficiaries Association $ARBA%& Pana+ Chapter& had attended last 9a+ ;!& 198#
the 6ediation confrontation a6ong 9rs. ati(idad Bito-on-/ieta and 9r. Graciano
Bernas acco6panied b+ his 'ife Adela Bernales that too: place right at the
residence of Brg+. Captain >elipe Bernas. )hat the outco6e of the conference 'as
fruitless as the Baranga+ Captain 'as siding 'ith his +ounger brother Graciano
Bernas& and he $Brg+. Captain% (ehe6entl+ refused to issue an+ certification as
re5uired under P./. 1#38.
.Aence undersigned as President of ARBA Pana+ Chapter hereb+ 6anifest and
certif+ that Graciano Berna is not a6ong those 'hose na6es are entered in our
6asterlist of tenants so as to suffice as a bona fide 6e6ber of Agrarian Refor6
Beneficiaries Association in Pana+& Capi4. <t is further stated that 9r. Graciano
Bernas is not a leasehold tenant of lando'ner 9rs. ati(idad Bito-on /ieta
in Baranga+ Calitan& Pana+& Capi4 $underscoring supplied%.
.)his certification is being issued to 9rs. /ieta in lieu of the refusal on part$s% of
Brg+. Captain to issue such under the pro(ision of P./. 1#38.L
7n ;1 Gune 198#& after all her efforts to reco(er through ad6inistrati(e 6eans failed&
ati(idad finall+ instituted an action in the Regional )rial Court of Capi4. But& in deciding the
case& the trial court co6pletel+ disregarded the result of the ad6inistrati(e in(estigation
conducted b+ Att+. Aer6inio R. Pelobello of the 9AR $D*h. .-.% and the Certification of the
President of ARBA $D*h. .D.% and ruled in fa(or of Graciano& holding that the transaction
bet'een ati(idad and Benigno 'as in the nature of a usufruct so that the latter 'as legall+
capacitated to install Graciano as an agricultural lessee 'hose tenurial right could not be
disturbed e*cept for causes enu6erated under Sec. "- of R.A. "8!!& as a6ended&B2C and that
ati(idad failed to establish an+ of the causes for his ter6ination.
ati(idad ele(ated her cause to the Court of Appeals contending that the transaction
bet'een her and her brother Benigno 'as not in the nature of a usufruct but rather
one commodatum. As such& Benigno& as bailee in commodatum& could neither lend nor lease
the propert+ loaned to hi6 to a third person since the relationship bet'een bailor and bailee is
personal in character. She also established 'ith her e(idence that Graciano con(erted 'ithout
her authorit+ three $"% of her parcels of land& particularl+ those planted to coconut and
banana& to ricelands& 'hich is a ground to ter6inate a tenant& assu6ing that Graciano 'as.
)he contention of ati(idad 'as sustained b+ the Court of Appeals& 'hich ordered the
e?ect6ent of Graciano. )he Court of Appeals ruled that ha(ing 6erel+ deri(ed his right o(er
the propert+ fro6 the bailee& Graciano could ha(e no better right than bailee Benigno 'ho
possessed the landholdings onl+ for a special purpose and for a li6ited period of ti6e. )he
spring cannot rise higher than its source.
Aence& this petition for re(ie' on certiorari filed b+ Graciano see:ing re(ersal of the
decisionB8C of the Court of Appeals on the issue of 'hether he is an agricultural lessee of the
landholdings entitled to securit+ of tenure.
)he resolution of this issue hinges on the proper interpretation of Sec. - of R.A. "8!!& as
a6ended& other'ise :no'n as .)he Agricultural 1and Refor6 Code& . 'hich pro(ides0
.Sec. -. Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relations. - )he agricultural leasehold
relations shall be li6ited to the person 'ho furnishes the landholding& either as
o'ner& ci(il la' lessee& usufructuar+& or legal possessor & and the person 'ho
personall+ culti(ates the sa6e. $underscoring ours%.
)hose 'ho hold that Graciano is a leasehold tenant anchor their proposition on the abo(e
pro(ision of Sec. - as the+ find Benigno a .legal possessor. of the lands and so could legall+
install a tenant thereon.
< strongl+ disagree. =hen Sec. - pro(ides that the agricultural leasehold relations shall be
li6ited to the person 'ho furnishes the landholding& either as o'ner& ci(il la' lessee&
usufructuar+& or legal possessor& and the person 'ho personall+ culti(ates the sa6e& it
assu6es that there is an e*isting agricultural leasehold relation& i.e.& a tenant or agricultural
lessee alread+ 'or:s the land. As 6a+ be gleaned fro6 the epigraph of Sec. -& it 6erel+
states 'ho are .Parties to Agricultural Leasehold Relations&. 'hich 6eans that there is
alread+ a leasehold tenant on the land. But this is precisel+ 'hat 'e are still as:ed to
deter6ine in these proceedings.
)o better understand Sec. -& R.A. "8!!& let us refer to its precursor& Sec. 8& R.A. 1199& as
a6ended& 'hich pro(ides0
.Sec. 8. Limitation of Relation. - )he relation of landholder and tenant shall be
li6ited to the person 'ho furnishes land& either as o'ner& lessee& usufructuar+& or
legal possessor& and to the person 'ho actuall+ 'or:s the land hi6self 'ith the aid
of labor a(ailable fro6 'ithin his i66ediate far6 household..
Again& Sec. 8 of R.A. 1199 assu6es the e*istence of a tenanc+ relation. But& as its
epigraph states& it is a .1i6itation of Relation&. and the purpose is 6erel+ to li6it the tenanc+
.to the person 'ho furnishes land& either as o'ner& lessee& usufructuar+& or legal possessor&
and to the person 'ho actuall+ 'or:s the land hi6self 'ith the aid of labor a(ailable fro6
'ithin his i66ediate far6 household.. 7ther'ise stated& once the tenanc+ relation is
established& the parties to that relation are li6ited to the persons therein stated. But&
ob(iousl+& inherent in their right to install a tenant is their authorit+ to do soE other'ise& 'ithout
such authorit+& the+ cannot install a tenant on the landholding. But& definitel+& neither Sec. - of
R.A. "8!! nor Sec. 8 of R.A. 1199 auto6aticall+ authori4es the persons na6ed therein to
e6plo+ a tenant on the landholding.
According to Santos and 9acalino& considered authorities on land refor6& the reason for
Sec. -& R.A. "8!!& and Sec. 8& R.A. 1199& in li6iting the relationship to the lessee and the
lessor is .to discourage absenteeis6 on the part of the lessor and the custo6 of co-tenanc+.
under& 'hich .the tenant $lessee% e6plo+s another to do the far6 'or: for hi6& although it is
he 'ith 'ho6 the landholder $lessor% deals directl+. )hus& under this custo6& the one 'ho
actuall+ 'or:s the land gets the short end of the bargain& for the no6inal or 8capitalist8 lessee
hugs for hi6self a 6a?or portion of the har(est.LB9C .)his custo6 has bred e*ploitation&
discontent and confusion * * * * )he 8:asugpong&8 8:asapi&8 or 8:atulong8 also 'or:s at
the pleasure of the no6inal tenant..B13C =hen the ne' la'& therefore& li6ited tenanc+ relation
to the landholder and the person 'ho actuall+ 'or:s the land hi6self 'ith the aid of labor
a(ailable fro6 'ithin his i66ediate far6 household& it eli6inated the no6inal tenant or 6iddle
6an fro6 the picture.B11C
Another noted authorit+ on land refor6& /ean Gere6ias F. 9onte6a+or&B1;C e*plains the
reason for Sec. 8& R.A. 1199& the precursor of Sec. -& R.A. "8!!0
.Since the la' establishes a special relationship in tenanc+ 'ith i6portant
conse5uences& it properl+ pinpoints the persons to 'ho6 said relationship shall
appl+. )he spirit of the la' is to pre(ent both landholder absenteeis6 and tenant
absenteeis6. )hus& it 'ould see6 that the discretionar+ po'ers and i6portant
duties of the landholder& li:e the choice of crop or seed& cannot be left to the 'ill or
capacit+ of an agent or o(erseer& ?ust as the culti(ation of the land cannot be
entrusted b+ the tenant to so6e other people. )enanc+ relationship has been held
to be of a personal character. $see Secs. "2 and !!& R.A. 1199& as a6endedE
underscoring supplied%.
)o argue that si6pl+ because Benigno is considered a usufructuar+ or legal possessor& or
a bailee in commodatum for that 6atter& he is auto6aticall+ authori4ed to e6plo+ a tenant on
the landholding is to beg the 5uestion. >or& it is not correct to sa+ that e(er+ legal possessor&
be he a usufructuar+ or a bailee& is authori4ed as a 6atter of right to e6plo+ a tenant. Ais
possession can be li6ited b+ agree6ent of the parties or b+ operation of la'. <n the case
before Fs& it is ob(ious that the tenure of the legal possessor 'as understood to be onl+
during the li6ited period 'hen the children of Benigno 'ere still schooling in 9anila.
As alread+ stated& Sec. - si6pl+ enu6erates 'ho are the parties to an e*isting contract of
agricultural tenanc+& 'hich presupposes that a tenanc+ alread+ e*ists. <t does not state that
those 'ho furnish the landholding& i.e.& either as o'ner& ci(il& la' lessee& usufructuar+& or legal
possessor& are auto6aticall+ authori4ed to e6plo+ a tenant on the landholding. )he reason is
ob(ious. )he legal possession 6a+ be restricti(e. D(en the o'ner hi6self 6a+ not be free to
install a tenant& as 'hen his o'nership or possession is encu6bered or is sub?ect to a lien or
condition that he should not e6plo+ a tenant thereon. )his conte6plates a situation 'here the
propert+ 6a+ be intended for so6e other specific purpose allo'able b+ la'& such as& its
con(ersion into a subdi(ision.
<n the case at bar& the transfer of possession 'as purel+ gratuitous. <t 'as not 6ade for
an+ consideration e*cept for the .dugo. or blood relationship bet'een ati(idad and Benigno.
Conse5uentl+& the generation of rights arising therefro6 should be strictl+ construed in fa(or
of ati(idad. <n fact& for lac: of consideration& she 6a+ ta:e bac: the land at an+ ti6e unless
she allo's a reasonable ti6e for Benigno to har(est the produce of 'hat he 6a+ ha(e
planted thereon as a possessor in good faith. )here is not e(en an+ (alid obligation on her
part to :eep Benigno in possession& e*cept as herein ad(erted to& 6uch less should she be
depri(ed of such possession ?ust because another person 'as e6plo+ed b+ her brother to
'or: the land.
Fnder the doctrine laid do'n in Lastimoza v. Blanco&B1"C Graciano cannot be a la'ful
tenant of ati(idad for the reason that Benigno& after failing to return the landholding to
ati(idad& alread+ beca6e a deforciant& and a deforciant cannot install a la'ful tenant
'ho is entitled to securit+ of tenure. <ncidentall+& Benigno and Graciano being brothers-in-la'&
their 'i(es being sisters& and li(ing in a s6all baranga+& Graciano cannot profess ignorance of
the (er+ nature of the possession of Benigno as 'ell as the restrictions to his possession.
<t 6a+ be rele(ant to consider& for a better appreciation of the facts& the actual condition of
the landholdings. As alread+ ad(erted to& 1ots 29! and 831 are coconut lands 'ith an area of
9!" s5uare 6eters $D*h. .C.% and 8## s5uare 6eters $D*h. .B.%& respecti(el+& or a total area
of 1&298 s5uare 6eters. =ith this 6eager area for the t'o $;% coconut lands& there is
indeed no reason to ha(e the6 tenanted. )he coconut lands need not be culti(ated 'hen the
coconut trees are alread+ fruit-bearing. Benigno onl+ had to ensure that the fruits thereof 'ere
not stolen.
1ot 8!3 has an area of 1&333 s5uare 6eters $D*h. ./.% and is planted to bananas. 1i:e
the coconut lands& no tenant is needed to culti(ate it and Benigno onl+ has to :eep 'atch
o(er it against stra+ ani6als and protect his har(ests. <f 'e ta:e a'a+ fro6 this area of 1&333
s5uare 6eters the ho6elot reser(ed for the o'ner& the re6aining portion for production
cannot be 6ore than 833 s5uare 6eters. <t can be less& depending on the si4e of the ho6elot.
Before Graciano con(erted 1ots 21!& 831 and 8!3 into ricelands& the onl+ riceland then
'as 1ot 8!8& 'ith an area of 1&1!- s5uare 6eters $D*h. .A.%. )his is too s6all for an
econo6ic fa6il+-si4e far6 to sustain Benigno and his fa6il+ e(en if he 'or:s it hi6self.
Considering the si4e of the landholdings& 'hich ha(e a total producti(e area of onl+ "&8!!
s5uare 6eters per their ta* declarations& there 6a+ not be enough produce to pa+ for the
educational e*penses of his children if Benigno did not 'or: the land hi6self. Airing a tenant
'ould defeat the purpose for 'hich the possession 'as gi(en to hi6. <n other 'ords& it 'ould
be absurd for Benigno to hire another person to culti(ate the land and share the produce
thereof. As a 6atter of fact& to 6ini6i4e e*penses& the children of Benigno and 9onica sta+ed
'ith ati(idad 'hile schooling in 9anila.
Since 1ots 21!& 831 and 8!3 are planted to coconut and banana trees& the+ are classified
as lands planted to per6anent crops. Conse5uentl+& in order for a person to be considered a
tenant of these lands& he 6ust ha(e planted the crops hi6self before the+ beca6e fruit-
bearing. But& in the case before us& the coconut and banana trees 'ere alread+ fruit-bearing
at the ti6e Graciano co66enced to 'or: on the lands& hence& he cannot be considered a
tenant of these lands.
Conse5uentl+& the transfer of possession of the landholding fro6 ati(idad to Benigno
should be strictl+ (ie'ed as one for the culti(ation alone of Benigno& hi6self a far6 'or:er&
'ho 'as not authori4ed b+ ati(idad to e6plo+ a tenant. Benigno8s possession 'as li6ited
onl+ to the en?o+6ent of the fruits thereof& sub?ect to the 'ill of lando'ner ati(idad. Benigno
'as not e6po'ered to install a tenant.B1!C
Benigno therefore possessed the land as a 6ere possessor-culti(ator. As such& he 'as
re5uired to personall+ till or culti(ate the land and use the produce thereof to defra+ the cost
of education of his children. ati(idad& 'ho entrusted her landholdings to Benigno& 'as still
the agricultural o'ner-culti(ator& 'ho is .an+ person 'ho& pro(iding capital and 6anage6ent&
personall+ culti(ates his o'n land 'ith the aid of his i66ediate fa6il+ and household..B1#C <t
6ust then be held that the culti(ation of Benigno 'as also the culti(ation of ati(idad. <ndeed&
the fact that the lands 'ere free of tenants 'hen ati(idad entrusted the6 to Benigno 'as
indicati(e of her intention to 6aintain that condition of the landholdings and ha(e the6 tended
personall+ b+ Benigno hi6self.
Accordingl+& neither Benigno nor Graciano can be a lessee-tenant 'ho en?o+s securit+ of
tenure. Benigno could onl+ be an encargado of his sister ati(idad& 6erel+ en?o+ing the
produce thereof for the intended beneficiaries& his children stud+ing in 9anila.
7ur attention 6a+ be in(ited to settled ?urisprudence that the e*istence of an agricultural
leasehold relationship is not ter6inated b+ changes of o'nership in case of sale& or transfer
of legal possession as in lease.B1-C But& again& this assu6es that a tenanc+ has alread+ been
established. <n the instant case& no such relationship 'as e(er created bet'een ati(idad and
Graciano& the for6er ha(ing si6pl+ gi(en her land to Benigno 'ithout an+ authorit+ to install a
tenant thereon&B12C and onl+ for a li6ited duration as it 'as coter6inous 'ith the schooling of
Benigno8s children in 9anila.
<n a nu6ber of cases& this Court has sustained the preser(ation of an agricultural
leasehold relationship bet'een landholder and tenant despite the change of o'nership or
transfer of legal possession fro6 one person to another. But in all these cases& the facts
legall+ ?ustified the preser(ation of such relationship. >or e*a6ple& in Endaya v. Court of
Appeals&B18C Salen v. Dinglasan&B19C Catorce v. Court of Appeals&B;3C and Co v. Court of
Appeals&B;1C the tenants 'ere found to ha(e been instituted b+ the pre(ious lando'ners or
o'ners in fee si6ple. Conse5uentl+& the change of o'nership of the land did not ter6inate the
tenanc+ relationship alread+ e*isting. <n ovesteras v. Court of Appeals&B;;C it 'as the
present lando'ner hi6self 'ho instituted the agricultural leasehold relation. <n Ponce v.
!uevarra&B;"C although the ci(il la' lessee 'as barred fro6 installing a tenant under the
ter6s of the original contract of lease& the lando'ner nonetheless e*tended the lifeti6e of the
lease. >inall+& in "oya v. Pare#a&B;!C the lessor-lando'ner negotiated for better ter6s 'ith the
tenant of the ci(il la' lessee upon e*piration of the lease.
As 6a+ be gleaned fro6 all these se(en $2% cases& the lando'ner hi6self had a hand in
either installing the tenant& or confir6ing the tenanc+ relation b+ e*tending it& or negotiating
directl+ 'ith the tenant for better ter6s upon e*piration of the ci(il lease. >or& indeed& the right
to install a tenant is a personal right that belongs to the lando'ner&B;#C e*cept perhaps in ci(il
lease 'hen the lessee is authori4ed to sublease the leased pre6ises unless e*pressl+
prohibited b+ agree6ent of the parties.B;-C
)hus& the agricultural leasehold relations 'ere preser(ed in these cases because the
.legal possessors. therein 'ere clearl+ clothed 'ith legal authorit+ or capacit+ to install
tenants. But e(en assu6ing that the+ 'ere not so authori4ed as in the Ponce case 'here the
ci(il la' lessee 'as e*pressl+ barred fro6 installing a tenant under their contract of lease& the
subse5uent actions of the lando'ners in e*tending the lifeti6e of the lease& or in negotiating
for better ter6s 'ith the tenants& placed the lando'ners in estoppel fro6 contesting the
agricultural leasehold relations. Conse5uentl+& the tenants in those cases 6a+ be categori4ed
as tenants de #ure en?o+ing tenurial securit+ guaranteed b+ the Agricultural )enanc+ 1a'E
B;2C no' b+ the Agricultural 1and Refor6 Code& as a6ended. )his is not the case before us.
<n an atte6pt to bolster his theor+ that he 'as tenant of the landholding& Graciano
presented no less than the 'ife of Benigno& 9onica Bernales-Bito-on& 'ho testified that she
'as the ci(il la' lessee 'ho installed Graciano as tenant. <nterestingl+& 9onica is the sister of
Adela Bernales& 'ife of Graciano. But 'h+ should 9onica be the ci(il la' lessee and not her
husband Benigno 'ho is the brother of lando'ner ati(idadH <t is highl+ i6probable that
instead of ati(idad constituting her brother Benigno as the possessor of the lands& it 'as
9onica 'ho 'as entrusted 'ith the6. )hat is contrar+ to co66on practice and e*perience.
D(en the trial court itself found the (ersion of Graciano incredible 'hen it held that Benigno
'as the legal possessor in the concept of usufructuar+. Met& it ignored this discrepanc+ - 'hich
could ha(e destro+ed the credibilit+ of Graciano - 'hen in fact it could ha(e totall+ negated or
disregarded Graciano8s assertion of tenanc+ deri(ed fro6 9onica as ci(il la' lessee. )he
conclusion is not farfetched that Benigno and 9onica 'ere ?ust entrusted 'ith the four $!% lots&
three $"% of 'hich 'ere orchards until their unauthori4ed con(ersion to ricelands b+ Graciano&
so that the for6er could a(ail of the produce thereof for the purpose alread+ stated.
9oreo(er& the clai6 of Graciano that he 'as the dul+ appointed tenant is belied b+ a
certification issued b+ the President of the Agrarian Refor6 Beneficiaries Association $ARBA%&
Pana+ Chapter& stating that& as of ;2 9a+ 198#& Graciano Bernas 'as neither enrolled in the
9aster 1ist of tenant beneficiaries nor registered as a leasehold tenant of ati(idad in
Baranga+ Calitan.B;8C <f he 'as trul+ a tenant& he should ha(e been (igilant enough to protect
his rights and thus ha(e his na6e registered. After all& at that ti6e& his older brother 'as the
baranga+ captain of Calitan 'here the propert+ is situated.
=hen ati(idad in(o:ed Sec. ;& P./. "1-& b+ referring her e?ect6ent case to the 9inistr+
of Agrarian Refor6 for preli6inar+ deter6ination& 9AR accordingl+ certified that it 'as proper
for trial& an indication that there 'as no tenanc+ relationship bet'een the parties. Such factual
finding& unless found to be baseless& binds the court because the la' gi(es e*clusi(e
authorit+ to 9AR to deter6ine preli6inaril+ the issue of tenanc+ relationship bet'een the
contending parties before the court 6a+ assu6e ?urisdiction o(er an agrarian dispute or
contro(ers+.B;9C
<ndeed& the <n(estigating 7fficer of 9AR correctl+ found that no tenanc+ relation e*isted
bet'een ati(idad and Graciano.B"3C Such factual finding b+ an ad6inistrati(e agenc+ as the
9AR is entitled to the greatest respect and is binding and conclusi(e upon this court& e*cept
'hen it is patentl+ arbitrar+ or capricious& or is not supported b+ substantial e(idence.
B"1C Regrettabl+& these (ital infor6ations established in the trial court 'ere si6pl+ ignored& to
the great pre?udice of respondent ati(idad 'ho& under the 6a?orit+ opinion& 'ill find herself
helplessl+ 'ithout a re6ed+ and all because she upheld the true >ilipino tradition of fa6il+
solidarit+ b+ pro(iding succor to a blood brother 'ho needed assistance for the educational
ad(ance6ent of his children.
<t 6a+ be 'orth to e6phasi4e that neither the decision of the Court of Appeals nor the
discussions in this case 6ention the unauthori4ed con(ersion b+ Graciano of 1ots 29!& 831
and 8!3 into ricelands& thereb+ i6pairing the original nature and (alue of the lands. <f for this
reason alone& assu6ing that he 'as la'full+ installed as tenant& Graciano8s tenanc+ should
be ter6inated under Sec. "-& par. $"%& for planting crops or using the landholdings for a
purpose other than for 'hich the+ 'ere dedicated.
=hile this 6a+ not ha(e been e*pressl+ raised as an issue& it is ne(ertheless related or
incidental to the issues presented b+ the parties for 'hich e(idence 'as adduced in the trial
court b+ pri(ate respondent 'ithout ob?ection fro6 petitioner. =e should not disregard the
e(idence if onl+ to arri(e at a fair and ?ust conclusion.
So6e 6a+ ha(e apprehensions that should Sec. - of R.A. "8!! be construed as not to
(est the legal possessor 'ith auto6atic authorit+ to install tenants& it 'ould in effect open the
floodgates to their e?ect6ent on the 6ere prete*t that the legal possessor 'as not so
authori4ed b+ the lando'ner. )his is 6ore i6agined than real. )he lando'ner has the burden
of pro(ing that the legal possessor 'as not authori4ed to install tenants and& 6ore often than
not& the legal possessor is so e6po'ered. <n ci(il la' lease& for instance& 'here there is
consideration& the general rule is that the lessee can sublease the leased holding unless there
is an e*press prohibition against subletting in the contract itself.B";C )hus& in order for the
lessee to be barred fro6 subletting& the contract of lease 6ust e*pressl+ stipulate to that
effect. <n this case& the transaction bet'een brother and sister 'as not for an+ 6aterial
consideration nor 'as it intended to defeat an+ purpose of la'. )here is not e(en an+
insinuation that Benigno 'as onl+ being used b+ ati(idad to oust Graciano fro6 the lands.
<n an+ e(ent& should the 6a?orit+ still hold that Sec. - of R.A. "8!! authori4es the persons
therein enu6erated to institute a tenant auto6aticall+& although < strongl+ disagree& it should
at 6ost be 6ade to appl+ onl+ to transfers of legal possession 'here there is 6aterial
consideration& and not 'here such transfers are absolutel+ gratuitous or purel+ out of
bene(olence because of personal or blood relationship. Fnfortunatel+ for ati(idad& her
bene(olence does not see6 to e(o:e reciprocal bene(olence fro6 this Court.
>7R A11 )AD >7RDG7<G C7S</DRA)<7S& < ha(e to dissent fro6 the 6a?orit+
opinion and reiterate 6+ (ote to A$$%R& the ?udg6ent under re(ie'.
9ean'hile& < can onl+ hope that& in the end& the real 6eaning of ?ustice in this case is
attained.
B1C P./. "1-.
B;C )sn& 1" >ebruar+ 198-& p. -.
B"C %'id.& p. 8.
B!C D*h. .>.& R)C Record& p. 131.
B#C D*h. .G.& R)C Records& pp. 13;-13!.
B-C D*h. .D.& R)C Record& p. 133.
B2C Sec. "-. Possession of Landholding( E)ceptions. - * * * $1% )he landholding is declared b+ the depart6ent
head upon reco66endation of the ational Planning Co66ission to be suited for residential&
co66ercial& industrial or so6e other urban purposes * * * * $;% )he agricultural lessee failed to
substantiall+ co6pl+ 'ith an+ of the ter6s and conditions of the contract or an+ pro(isions of this Code
unless his failure is caused b+ fortuitous e(ent or force 6a?eureE $"% )he agricultural lessee planted
crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than 'hat has been pre(iousl+ agreed uponE $!% )he
agricultural lessee failed to adopt pro(en agricultural far6 practices * * * * $#% )he land or other
substantial i6pro(e6ent thereon is substantiall+ da6aged or destro+ed or has unreasonabl+
deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lesseeE $-% )he agricultural lessee does
not pa+ the lease rental 'hen it falls due * * * * $2% )he lessee e6plo+ed a sub-lessee on his
landholding in (iolation of the ter6s of paragraph ; of Section ;2.
B8C Penned b+ Gustice 9iner(a P. Gon4aga-Re+es& concurred in b+ Gustices Serafin . Ca6ilon and
Pedro A. Ra6ire4.
B9C Santos and 9acalino& )he Agricultural 1and Refor6 Code& 19-" Dd.& p. 11.
B13C %d.& pp. ;1"-;1!.
B11C %d.& p. ;1!.
B1;C 9onte6a+or& Gere6ias F.& La'or* Agrarian and Social Legislation& ,ol. <<<& 19-8 ed.& p. !3.
B1"C G.R. o. 1-1!-92& ;8 Ganuar+ 19-1& 1 SCRA ;"1.
B1!C )sn& 1" >ebruar+ 198-& p. 8.
B1#C Sec. 1--& par. $;;%& R.A. "8!!.
B1-C Dnda+a v. Court of Appeals& G.R. o. 8811"& ;" 7ctober 199;.
B12C See ote 1!.
B18C See ote 1-.
B19C G.R. o. #938;& ;8 Gune 1991& 198 SCRA -;".
B;3C G.R. o. #92-;& 11 9a+ 198!& 1;9 SCRA ;13.
B;1C G.R. o. -#;98& ;1 Gune 1988& 1-; SCRA "93.
B;;C G.R. o. 1-"--#!& "1 9arch 19-2& 1!9 SCRA !2.
B;"C G.R. os. 1-19-;9 and 19-2;-9;& "1 9arch 19-!& 13 SCRA -!9.
B;!C 13- Phil. -!# $19#9%.
B;#C 9onte6a+or& Gere6ias F.& op. cit.
B;-C Art. 1-#3& e' Ci(il Code.
B;2C 1asti6o4a v. Blanco& supra.
B;8C D*h. .D.& R)C Record& p. 133.
B;9C Sec. 1;& par. $b%& subpar. $;%& of P./. 9!-.
B"3C D*h. .G.& R)C Records& pp. 13;-13!.
B"1C Republic v. Sandiganba+an& G.R. o. 89!;#& ;# >ebruar+ 199;& ;3- SCRA #3-.
B";C Art. 1-#3& e' Ci(il Code.

Source0 Supre6e Court D-1ibrar+
)his page 'as d+na6icall+ generated
b+ the D-1ibrar+ Content 9anage6ent S+ste6 $D-1ibC9S%
A.rar#a' Reform Cases a'+ t"e#r Abstracts
SourceUR! http566777.lis.(ar.+ov.ph6home6(oume$t:vie766642

&US34C- 54AGR*S A. G-R5AN6S
4N7-8 *9 SU0R-5- C*UR3 RU4NGS 4N AGRAR4AN CAS-S 9R*5
&ANUAR: 1961 3* 2%%1
A
A1AN7*N5-N3
GaAino Bo'!us As. S!s. G&'onimo G'os!&
G.7. No. 130"9<, 5un& C, "000
Aba$(o$me$t re;uires a lear a$( absolute i$te$tio$ to re$ou$e a ri+ht or laim or
to (esert a ri+ht or property.
7os&llo As. 7&(&s
99 SB7A 1
After the 2rial Court fou$( as per its (eisio$ that the te$a$t 7as $ot e4ete( by the
la$(o7$er but that he volu$tarily aba$(o$e( his la$(hol(i$+, it is i$orret for the Court to
or(er his rei$stateme$t
T&o,o'o As. 3a;a'a&g
"< SB7A C9
2e$a$t<s offer to surre$(er leasehol( o$ the o$(itio$ that o$e $ame( by him shoul(
be aepte( as his suessor (oes $ot o$stitute aba$(o$me$t.

AC34*NS
+&!a'tm&nt o> Ag'a'ian 7&>o'm A,8u,i;ation Boa', As. Bou't o> A!!&als
G.7. Nos. 113""0"1, 5anua'( "1, 199<
"66 SB7A 206
All atio$s pursue( u$(er the e=lusive ori+i$al 4uris(itio$ of the 3AR, i$
aor(a$e 7ith 5" of R.A. No. 665!, must be omme$e( i$ the -ARA3 of the provi$e
7here the property is loate( a$( the 3ARA. o$ly has appellate 4uris(itio$ to revie7 the
-ARA3<s or(ers, (eisio$s a$( other (ispositio$s.
Tongson As. Bou't o> A!!&als
G.7. No. <<102, NoA&m#&' 6, 199"
"10 SB7A 2"C
>$(er Setio$ 11, R.A. No. 1199, a$ atio$ for aou$ti$+ may be file( by the
te$a$t 7ithi$ three ?&@ years from the (ate of the threshi$+ of the rop i$ ;uestio$.
-au'&to As. Bou't o> A!!&als
G.7. No. 90C3C, August <, 199"
;#llaflor vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 95694,
*ctober 9, 199$ 2(% SCRA 29(
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&51"!
0n this rather &actually complicated case, the Court reiterates the binding &orce and e&&ect o&
&indings o& speciali*ed administrative agencies as %ell as those o& trial courts %hen a&&irmed
by the Court o& Appeals> re=ects petitionerHs theory o& simulation o& contracts> and passes
upon the quali&ications o& private respondent corporation to acquire disposable public
agricultural lands prior to the e&&ectivity o& the !<8 Constitution)
The Case
5e&ore us is a petition &or revie% on certiorari see6ing the reversal o& the ;ecision#$ o& the
Court o& Appeals, dated +eptember 2<, !!", in C)A) I)R) C( No) "!"42, a&&irming the
dismissal by the trial court o& Petitioner (icente (illa&lorHs complaint against Private
Respondent Nasipit 2umber Co), 0nc) Dhe disposition o& both the trial and the appellate courts
are quoted in the statement o& &acts belo%)
The Facts
Dhe &acts o& this case, as narrated in detail by Respondent Court o& Appeals, are as &ollo%s.
#2$
8Dhe evidence, testimonial and documentary, presented during the trial sho% that
on 'anuary 4, !3", Cirilo Piencenaves, in a ;eed o& Absolute +ale @e,h) AA, sold
to #petitioner$, a parcel o& agricultural land containing an area o& :" hectares,
#8$ more or less, and particularly described and bounded as &ollo%s.
GA certain parcel o& agricultural land planted to abaca %ith visible concrete monuments
mar6ing the boundaries and bounded on the N-RDB by Public 2and no% Private ;eeds on the
East by +era&in (illa&lor, on the +-CDB by Public 2and> and on the Eest by land claimed by B)
Patete, containing an area o& 4" hectares more or less, no% under Da, ;ec) 2!3: in the @sicA
o& said (icente (illa&lor, the %hole parcel o& %hich this particular parcel is only a part, is
assessed at P22,::")"" under the above said Da, ;ec) Number)H
This *ee* states:
GDhat the above described land %as sold to the said (0CENDE (022A12-R, ,,, on 'une 22,
!8<, but no &ormal document %as then e,ecuted, and since then until the present time, the
said (icente (illa&lor has been in possession and occupation o& @the sameA> @andA
Dhat the above described property %as be&ore the sale, o& my e,clusive property having
inherited &rom my long dead parents and my o%nership to it and that o& my #sic$ lasted &or
more than &i&ty @:"A years, possessing and occupying same peace&ully, publicly and
continuously %ithout interruption &or that length o& time)H
Also on 'anuary 4, !3", Claudio -tero, in a ;eed o& Absolute +ale @e,h) CA sold
to (illa&lor a parcel o& agricultural land, containing an area o& 23 hectares, more or
less, and particularly described and bounded as &ollo%s.
GA certain land planted to corn %ith visible concrete measurements mar6ing the boundaries
and bounded on the North by Public 2and and Dungao Cree6> on the East by Agusan River> on
the +outh by +era&in (illa&lor and Cirilo Piencenaves> and on the Eest by land o& 1ermin
5acobo containing an area o& 23 hectares more or less, under Da, ;eclaration No) 2!3: in
the name already o& (icente (illa&lor, the %hole parcel o& %hich this particular land is only a
part, is assessed at P22,::")"" under the above said Da, ;eclaration No) 2!3:)H
This *ee* states:
GDhat the above described land %as sold to the said (0CENDE (022A12-R, ,,, on 'une 22,
!8<, but no sound document %as then e,ecuted, ho%ever since then and until the present
time, the said (icente (illa&lor has been in open and continuous possession and occupation o&
said land> @andA
Dhat the above described land %as be&ore the sale, my o%n e,clusive property, being
inherited &rom my deceased parents, and my o%nership to it and that o& my predecessors
lasted more than &i&ty @:"A years, possessing and occupying the same, peace&ully, openly and
continuously %ithout interruption &or that length o& time)H
2i6e%ise on 'anuary 4, !3", Bermogenes Patete, in a ;eed o& Absolute +ale
@e,h) ;A, sold to (illa&lor, a parcel o& agricultural land, containing an area o& 2"
hectares, more or less, and particularly described and bounded as &ollo%s.
GA certain parcel o& agricultural land planted to abaca and corn %ith visible concrete
monuments mar6ing the boundaries and bounded on the North by Public 2and area7private
Road> on the East by land claimed by Cirilo Piencenaves> on the +outh by Public 2and
containing an area o& 2" hectares more or less, no% under Da, ;eclaration No) 2!3: in the
name o& (icente (illa&lor the %hole parcel o& %hich this particular parcel, is assessed at
P22,::")"" &or purposes o& ta,ation under the above said Da, ;eclaration No) 2!3:)H
This *ee* states:
G,,, @-An 'une 22, !8< but the &ormal document %as then e,ecuted, and since then until
the present time, the said (0CENDE (022A12-R has been in continuous and open possession
and occupation o& the same> @andA
Dhat the above described property %as be&ore the sale, my o%n and e,clusive property, being
inherited &rom my deceased parents and my o%nership to it and that o& my predecessors
lasted more than &i&ty @:"A years, possessing and occupying same, peace&ully, openly and
continuously %ithout interruption &or that length o& time)H
-n 1ebruary :, !3", 1ermin 5ocobo, in a ;eed o& Absolute +ale @e,h) 5A, sold to
(illa&lor, a parcel o& agricultural land, containing an area o& 9 hectares, more or
less, and particularly described and bounded as &ollo%s.
GA certain parcel o& agricultural land planted %ith abaca %ith visible part mar6ing the corners
and bounded on the North by the corners and bounded on the North by Public 2and> on the
East by Cirilo Piencenaves> on the +outh by Bermogenes Patete and Eest by Public 2and,
containing an area o& 9 hectares more or less no% under Da, ;eclaration No) 2!3: in the
name o& (icente (illa&lor) Dhe %hole parcel o& %hich this particular parcel is only a part is
assessed as P22,::")"" &or purposes o& ta,ation under the above said Da, ;eclaration
Number @;eed o& Absolute +ale e,ecuted by 1ermin 5ocobo date 1eb) :, !3"A) Dhis
document %as annotated in Registry o& ;eeds on 1ebruary 4, !3"A)H
This *ee* states:
GDhat the above described property %as be&ore the sale o& my o%n e,clusive property, being
inherited &rom my deceased parents, and my o%nership to it and that o& my predecessors
lasted more than &i&ty @:"A years, possessing and occupying the same peace&ully, openly and
continuously %ithout interruption &or that length o& time)H
-n November 9, !34, (illa&lor, in a 2ease Agreement @e,h) QA,#3$ leased to Nasipit 2umber
Co), 0nc) a parcel o& land, containing an area o& t%o @2A hectares, together %ith all the
improvements e,isting thereon, &or a period o& &ive @:A years &rom 'une , !34 at a rental o&
P2"")"" per annum Gto cover the annual rental o& house and building sites &or thirty three
@88A houses or buildings)H Dhis agreement also provides.#:$
G8) ;uring the term o& this lease, the 2essee is authori*ed and empo%ered to build and
construct additional houses in addition to the 88 houses or buildings mentioned in the ne,t
preceding paragraph, provided ho%ever, that &or every additional house or building
constructed the 2essee shall pay unto the 2essor an amount o& &i&ty centavos @X:"A per
month &or every house or building) Dhe 2essee is empo%ered and authori*ed by the 2essor to
sublot @sicA the premises hereby leased or assign the same or any portion o& the land hereby
leased to any person, &irm and corporation> @andA
3) Dhe 2essee is hereby authori*ed to ma6e any construction and?or improvement on
the premises hereby leased as he may deem necessary and proper thereon, provided
ho%ever, that any and all such improvements shall become the property o& the 2essor upon
the termination o& this lease %ithout obligation on the part o& the latter to reimburse the
2essee &or e,penses incurred in the construction o& the same)H
(illa&lor claimed having discovered that a&ter the e,ecution o& the lease agreement,
that Nasipit 2umber Gin bad &aith , , , surreptitiously grabbed and occupied a big
portion o& plainti&&Hs property , , ,H> that a&ter a con&rontation %ith the corporateHs
@sicA &ield manager, the latter, in a letter dated ;ecember 8, !<8 @e,h) RA,
#4$ stated recalling having Gmade some sort o& agreement &or the occupancy @o&
the property at Acacia, +an MateoA, but 0 no longer recall the details and 0 had
&orgotten %hether or not %e did occupy your land) 5ut i&, as you say, %e did
occupy it, then @he is A sure that the company is obligated to pay the rental)H
-n 'uly <, !39, in an GAgreement to +ellH @e,h) 2A, (illa&lor conveyed to Nasipit
2umber, t%o @2A parcels o& land ,,, described as &ollo%s.#<$
GPARCE2 -NE
5ounded on the North by Public 2and and Dungao Cree6> on the East by Agusan River and
+era&in (illa&lor> on the +outh by Public 2and, on the Eest by Public 2and) 0mprovements
thereon consist o& abaca, &ruit trees, coconuts and thirty houses o& mi,ed materials belonging
to the Nasipit 2umber Company) ;ivided into 2ot Nos) :32, :38, :399, :3!", :3!, :3!2,
:9:", :93!, :94", :9::, :9:, :9:3, :9::, :9:!, :9:9, :9:<, :9:8, and :9:2) 5oundaries
o& this parcel o& land are mar6ed by concrete monuments o& the 5ureau o& 2ands) Containing
an area o& 2,""" hectares) Assessed at P<,4")"" according to Da, ;eclaration No) (78:
dated April 3, !34)
PARCE2 DE-
5ounded on the North by Pagudasan Cree6> on the East by Agusan River> on the +outh by
Dungao Cree6> on the Eest by Public 2and) Containing an area o& 39,""" hectares more or
less) ;ivided into 2ot Nos) :3, :3", :3"!, and :8!!) 0mprovements "" coconut trees,
productive, and 8"" cacao trees) 5oundaries o& said land are mar6ed by concrete monuments
o& the 5ureau p& @sicA 2ands) Assessed value 77 P4,2!")"" according to Da, No) 8<, April 3,
!34)H
Dhis Agreement to +ell provides.
G8) Dhat beginning today, the Party o& the +econd Part shall continue to occupy the
property not anymore in concept o& lessee but as prospective o%ners, it being the sense o&
the parties hereto that the Party o& the +econd Part shall not in any manner be under any
obligation to ma6e any compensation to the Party o& the 1irst Part, &or the use, and
occupation o& the property herein be&ore described in such concept o& prospective o%ner, and
it li6e%ise being the sense o& the parties hereto to terminate as they do hereby terminate,
e&&ective on the date o& this present instrument, the Contract o& 2ease, other%ise 6no%n as
;oc) No) 32", Page No) 84, 5oo6 No) 00, +eries o& !34 o& Notary Public Iabriel R) 5anaag, o&
the Province o& Agusan)
3) Dhat the Party o& the +econd Part has bound as it does hereby bind itsel&, its
e,ecutors and administrators, to pay unto the party o& the 1irst Part the sum o& 1ive
Dhousand Pesos @P:,""")""A, Philippine Currency, upon presentation by the latter to the
&ormer o& satis&actory evidence that.
@aA Dhe 5ureau o& 2ands %ill not have any ob=ection to the obtainment by the Party o& the
1irst Part o& a Certi&icate o& Dorrens Ditle in his &avor, either thru ordinary land registration
proceedings or thru administrative means procedure)
@bA Dhat there is no other private claimant to the properties hereinbe&ore described)
:) Dhat the Party o& the 1irst Part has bound as he does hereby bind to underta6e
immediately a&ter the e,ecution o& these presents to secure and obtain, or cause to be
secured and obtained, a Certi&icate o& Dorrens Ditle in his &avor over the properties described
on Page @-neA hereo&, and a&ter obtainment o& such Certi&icate o& Dorrens Ditle, the said Party
o& the 1irst Part shall e,ecute a @;Aeed o& Absolute +ale unto and in &avor o& the Party o& the
+econd Part, its e,ecutors, administrators and assigns, it being the sense o& the parties that
the Party o& the +econd Part upon delivery to it o& such deed o& absolute sale, shall pay unto
the Party o& the 1irst Part in cash, the sum o& D%elve Dhousand @P2,""")""A Pesos in
Philippine Currency, provided, ho%ever, that the Party o& the 1irst Part, shall be reimbursed
by the Party o& the +econd Part %ith one hal& o& the e,penses incurred by the Party o& the
1irst Part &or survey and attorneyHs &ees> and other incidental e,penses not e,ceeding
P8"")"")H
-n ;ecember 2, !39, (illa&lor &iled +ales Application No) (79"<#9$ @e,h) A %ith
the 5ureau o& 2ands, Manila, Gto purchase under the provisions o& Chapter (, J0 or
0J o& Common%ealth Act) No) 3 @Dhe Public 2ands ActA, as amended, the tract o&
public lands , , , and described as &ollo%s. GNorth by Public 2and> East by Agusan
River and +era&in (illa&lor> +outh by Public 2and and Eest by public land @2ot Nos)
:8<!, :39!, :32, :3!", :3!, :3!2, :93!, :9:", :9:, :38, :399, :39!, :9:2,
:9:8, :9:3, :9::, :9:4, :9:<, :9:9, :9:! and :94" , , , containing an area o&
3" hectares ,,,)H Paragraph 4 o& the Application, states. G0 understand that this
application conveys no right to occupy the land prior to its approval, and 0
recogni*ed @sicA that the land covered by the same is o& public domain and any
and all rights 0 may have %ith respect thereto by virtue o& continuous occupation
and cultivation are hereby relinquished to the Iovernment)H#!$ @e,h) 7;A
-n ;ecember <, !39, (illa&lor and Nasipit 2umber e,ecuted an GAgreementH @e,h
8A)#"$ Dhis contract provides.
G) Dhat the 1irst Party is the possessor since !8" o& t%o @2A parcels o& land situated
in sitio Dungao, 5arrio o& +an Mateo, Municipality o& 5utuan, Province o& Agusan>
2) Dhat the &irst parcel o& land abovementioned and described in Plan P2+7!< &iled in
the o&&ice o& the 5ureau o& 2ands is made up o& 2ots Nos) :32, :38, :399, :3!", :3!,
:3!2, :93!, :9:", :9:, :9:2, :9:8, :9:3, :9::, :9:4, :9:<, :9:9, :9:! and :94" and
the second parcel o& land is made o& 2ots Nos) :8!!, :3"!, :3" and :3>
8) Dhat on 'uly <, !39, a contract o& Agreement to +ell %as e,ecuted bet%een the
contracting parties herein, covering the said t%o parcels o& land, copy o& said Agreement to
+ell is hereto attached mar6ed as Anne, LAF and made an integral part o& this document) Dhe
parties hereto agree that the said Agreement to +ell be maintained in &ull &orce and e&&ect
%ith all its terms and conditions o& this present agreement and in no %ay be considered as
modi&ied)
3) Dhat paragraph 3 o& the Contract o& Agreement to +ell, mar6ed as anne,, LAF
stipulates as &ollo%s.
GPar) 3) Dhat the Party o& the +econd Part has bound as it does hereby bind itsel&, its
e,ecutors and administrators, to pay unto the Party o& the 1irst Part o& the sum o& 10(E
DB-C+AN; PE+-+ @P:,""")""A Philippine Currency, upon presentation by the latter to the
&ormer o& satis&actory evidence that.
aA Dhe 5ureau o& 2ands %ill have any ob=ection to the obtainment by Party o& the 1irst Part
o& a &avor, either thru ordinary land registration proceedings or thru administrative means and
procedure)
bA Dhat there is no other private claimant to the properties hereinabove described)H
Dhat the 1irst Party has on ;ecember 2, !39, submitted to the 5ureau o& 2ands, a +ales
Application &or the t%enty7t%o @22A lots comprising the t%o abovementioned parcels o& land,
the said +ales Application %as registered in the said 5ureau under No) (79"<>
4) Dhat in reply to the request made by the 1irst Party to the 5ureau o& 2ands, in
connection %ith the +ales Application No) (79"<, the latter in&ormed the &ormer that action on
his request %ill be e,pedited, as per letter o& the Chie&, Public 2and ;ivision, dated ;ecember
2, !39, copy o& %hich is hereto attached mar6ed as anne, G5H and made an integral part o&
this agreement.
<) Dhat &or and in consideration o& the premises above stated and the amount o&
DEENDK 1-CR DB-C+AN; @P23,""")""A PE+-+ that the +econd Party shall pay to the 1irst
Party, by these presents, the 1irst Party hereby sells, trans&ers and conveys unto the +econd
Party, its successors and assigns, his right, interest and participation under an@dA by virtue o&
the +ales Application No) (79"<, %hich he has or may have in the lots mentioned in said
+ales Application No) (79"<>
9) Dhat the amount o& DEENDK 1-CR DB-C+AN; @P23,""")""A PE+-+, shall be paid
by the +econd Party to the 1irst Party, as &ollo%s.
aA Dhe amount o& +E(EN DB-C+AN; @P<,""")""A PE+-+, has already been paid by the
+econd Party to the 1irst Party upon the e,ecution o& the Agreement to +ell, on 'uly <, !39>
bA Dhe amount o& 10(E DB-C+AN; @P:,""")""A PE+-+ shall be paid upon the signing o&
this present agreement> and
cA Dhe balance o& DEE2(E DB-C+AN; @P2,""")""A PE+-+, shall be paid upon the
e,ecution by the 1irst Party o& the Absolute ;eed o& +ale o& the t%o parcels o& land in
question in &avor o& the +econd Party, and upon delivery to the +econd Party o& the Certi&icate
o& -%nership o& the said t%o parcels o& land)
!) 0t is specially understood that the mortgage constituted by the 1irst Party in &avor
o& the +econd Party, as stated in the said contract o& Agreement to +ell dated 'uly <, !39,
shall cover not only the amount o& +E(EN DB-C+AN; @P<,""")""A PE+-+ as speci&ied in said
document, but shall also cover the amount o& 10(E DB-C+AN; @P:,""")""A PE+-+ to be paid
as stipulated in paragraph 9, sub7paragraph @bA o& this present agreement, i& the 1irst Party
should &ail to comply %ith the obligations as provided &or in paragraphs 2, 3, and : o& the
Agreement to +ell>
") 0t is &urther agreed that the 1irst Party obligates himsel& to sign, e,ecute and
deliver to and in &avor o& the +econd Party, its successors and assigns, at anytime upon
demand by the +econd Party such other instruments as may be necessary in order to give &ull
e&&ect to this present agreement>H
0n the Report dated ;ecember 8, !3! by the public land inspector, ;istrict 2and
-&&ice, 5ureau o& 2ands, in 5utuan, the report contains an 0ndorsement o& the
a&oresaid ;istrict 2and -&&icer recommending re=ection o& the +ales Application o&
(illa&lor &or having leased the property to another even be&ore he had acquired
transmissible rights thereto)
0n a letter o& (illa&lor dated 'anuary 28, !:", addressed to the 5ureau o& 2ands,
he in&ormed the 5ureau ;irector that he %as already occupying the property %hen
the 5ureauHs Agusan River (alley +ubdivision Pro=ect %as inaugurated, that the
property %as &ormerly claimed as private properties @sicA, and that there&ore, the
property %as segregated or e,cluded &rom disposition because o& the claim o&
private o%nership) 0n a letter o& Nasipit 2umber dated 1ebruary 22, !:" @e,h) JA
#$ addressed to the ;irector o& 2ands, the corporation in&ormed the 5ureau that
it recogni*ed (illa&lor as the real o%ner, claimant and occupant o& the land> that
since 'une !34, (illa&lor leased t%o @2A hectares inside the land to the company>
that it has no other interest on the land> and that the +ales Application o& (illa&lor
should be given &avorable consideration)
,,,
,,, ,,,
-n 'uly 23, !:", the scheduled date o& auction o& the property covered by the
+ales Application, Nasipit 2umber o&&ered the highest bid o& P3)"" per hectare,
but since an applicant under CA 3, is allo%ed to equal the bid o& the highest
bidder, (illa&lor tendered an equal bid, deposited the equivalent o& "T o& the bid
price and then paid the assessment in &ull)
,,,
,,, ,,,
-n August 4, !:", (illa&lor e,ecuted a document, denominated as a G;eed o&
Relinquishment o& RightsH @e,h) NA,#2$ pertinent portion o& %hich reads.
G:) Dhat in vie% o& my present business in Manila, and my change in residence &rom 5utuan,
Agusan to the City o& Manila, 0 cannot, there&ore, develope @sicA or cultivate the land applied
&or as pro=ected be&ore>
4) Dhat the Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc), a corporation duly organi*ed ,,, is very much
interested in acquiring the land covered by the a&orecited application ,,,>
<) Dhat 0 believe the said company is quali&ied to acquire public land, and has the means to
develop @sicA the above7mentioned land>
,,,
,,, ,,,
EBERE1-RE, and in consideration o& the amount o& 10(E DB-C+AN; PE+-+ @P:,""")""A to
be reimbursed to me by the a&orementioned Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc), a&ter its receipt
o& the order o& a%ard, the said amount representing part o& the purchase price o& the land
a&oresaid, the value o& the improvements 0 introduced thereon, and the e,penses incurred in
the publication o& the Notice o& +ale, 0, the applicant, (icente ') (illa&lor, hereby voluntarily
renounce and relinquish %hatever rights to, and interests 0 have in the land covered by my
above7mentioned application in &avor o& the Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc)H
Also on August 4, !:", Nasipit 2umber &iled a +ales Application over the t%o @2A
parcels o& land, covering an area o& 3" hectares, more or less) Dhis application
%as also numbered (79"< @e,h) KA)
-n August <, !:" the ;irector o& 2ands issued an G-rder o& A%ardH#8$ in &avor
o& Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc), pertinent portion o& %hich reads.
G3) Dhat at the auction sale o& the land held on 'uly 23, !:" the highest bid received %as
that o& Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc) %hich o&&ered P3)"" per hectare or P:,<3")"" &or the
%hole tract, %hich bid %as equaled by applicant (icente ') (illa&lor, %ho deposited the amount
o& P:<3)"" under -&&icial Receipt No) 578<8924 dated 'uly 23, !:" %hich is equivalent to
"T o& the bid) +ubsequently, the said ,,, (illa&lor paid the amount o& P:,4")"" in &ull
payment o& the purchase price o& the above7mentioned land and &or some reasons stated in
an instrument o& relinquishment dated August 4, !:", he @(icente ') (illa&lorA relinquished
his rights to and interest in the said land in &avor o& the Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc) %ho
&iled the corresponding application there&ore)
0n vie% o& the &oregoing, and it appearing that the proceedings had ,,, %ere in accordance
%ith la% and in #sic$ e,isting regulations, the land covered thereby is hereby a%arded to
Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc) at P3)"" per hectare or P:,<3")"" &or the %hole tract)
Dhis application should be entered in the record o& this -&&ice as +ales Entry No) (73"<)H
0t is (illa&lorHs claim that he only learned o& the -rder o& A%ard on 'anuary 4,
!<3, or a&ter his arrival to the Philippines, coming &rom 0ndonesia, %here he
stayed &or more than ten @"A years> that he %ent to 5utuan City in the latter part
o& !<8 upon the call o& his brother +era&in (illa&lor, %ho %as then sic6 and learned
that Nasipit 2umber @hadA &ailed and re&used to pay the agreed rentals, although
his brother %as able to collect during the early years> and that +era&in died three
days a&ter his @(icenteHsA arrival, and so no accounting o& the rentals could be
made> that on November 2<, !<8, (illa&lor %rote a letter to Mr) I)E)C) Mears o&
Nasipit 2umber, reminding him o& their verbal agreement in !:: ,,, that Mr)
Mears in a Reply dated ;ecember 8, !<8, appears to have re&erred the matter to
Mr) Noriega, the corporate general manager, but the ne% set o& corporate o&&icers
re&used to recogni*e @(illa&lorHsA claim, &or Mr) 1lorencio Damesis, the general
manager o& Nasipit 2umber, in a letter dated 1ebruary !, !<3, denied (illa&lorHs
itemi*ed claim dated 'anuary :, !<3 @e,h) (A to be %ithout valid and legal basis)
0n that :th 'anuary, !<3 letter, (illa&lor claimed the total amount o& P32<,""")""
, , ,)
0n a &ormal protest dated 'anuary 8, !<3#3$ %hich (illa&lor &iled %ith the
5ureau o& 2ands, he protested the +ales Application o& Nasipit 2umber, claiming
that the company has not paid him P:,""")"" as provided in the ;eed o&
Relinquishment o& Rights dated August 4, !:")
,,,
,,, ,,,
, , , @DAhat in a ;ecision dated August 9, !<< @e,h) 9A, the ;irector o& 2ands
&ound that the payment o& the amount o& P:,""")"" in the ;eed ,,, and the
consideration in the Agreement to +ell %ere duly proven, and ordered the
dismissal o& (illa&lorHs protest and gave due course to the +ales Application o&
Nasipit 2umber) Pertinent portion o& the ;ecision penned by ;irector o& 2ands,
Ramon Casanova, in the Matter o& +P No) (79"< @C7(73"<A ,,, reads.
G,,,
,,, ,,,
;uring the proceedings, (illa&lor presented another claim entirely di&&erent &rom his previous
claim 77 this time, &or recovery o& rentals in arrears arising &rom a supposed contract o& lease
by (illa&lor as lessor in &avor o& Nasipit as lessee, and indemnity &or damages supposedly
caused improvements on his other property ,,, in the staggering amount o& +eventeen
Million @P<,""",""")""A Pesos) Earlier, he had also demanded &rom NA+0P0D ,,,
@P32<,""")""A ,,, also as indemnity &or damages to improvements supposedly caused by
NA+0P0D on his other real property as %ell as &or reimbursement o& realty ta,es allegedly paid
by him thereon)
,,,
,,, ,,,
0t %ould seem that ,,, (illa&lor has sought to in=ect so many collaterals, i& not e,traneous
claims, into this case) 0t is the considered opinion o& this -&&ice that any claim not %ithin the
sphere or scope o& its ad=udicatory authority as an administrative as %ell as quasi7=udicial
body or any issue %hich see6s to delve into the merits o& incidents clearly outside o& the
administrative competence o& this -&&ice to decide may not be entertained)
Dhere is no merit in the contention o& (illa&lor that o%ing to NasipitHs &ailure to pay the
amount o& ,,, @P:,""")""A ,,, @assuming that Nasipit had &ailedA the deed o& relinquishment
became null and void &or lac6 o& consideration) ,,,,)
,,,
,,, ,,,
, , , Dhe records clearly sho%, ho%ever, that since the e,ecution o& the deed o&
relinquishment ,,, (illa&lor has al%ays considered and recogni*ed NA+0P0D as having the
=uridical personality to acquire public lands &or agricultural purposes) ,,,,)
,,,
,,, ,,,
Even this -&&ice had not &ailed to recogni*e the =uridical personality o& NA+0P0D to apply &or
the purchase o& public lands ,,, %hen it a%arded to it the land so relinquished by (illa&lor
@-rder o& A%ard dated August <, !:"A and accepted its application there&or) At any rate,
the question %hether an applicant is quali&ied to apply &or the acquisition o& public lands is a
matter bet%een the applicant and this -&&ice to decide and %hich a third party li6e (illa&lor
has no personality to question beyond merely calling the attention o& this -&&ice thereto)
,,,
,,, ,,,
(illa&lor o&&ered no evidence to support his claim o& non7payment beyond his o%n sel&7serving
assertions and e,pressions that he had not been paid said amount) As protestant in this case,
he has the a&&irmative o& the issue) Be is obliged to prove his allegations, other%ise his action
%ill &ail) 1or, it is a %ell settled principle @GA that i& plainti&& upon %hom rests the burden o&
proving his cause o& action &ails to sho% in a satis&actory manner the &acts upon %hich he
bases his claim, the de&endant is under no obligation to prove his e,ceptions or special
de&enses @5elen vs) 5elen, 8 Phil) 2"2> Mendo*a vs) 1ulgencio, 9 Phil) 238A)
,,,
,,, ,,,
Consequently, (illa&lorHs claim that he had not been paid must per&orce &ail)
-n the other hand, there are strong and compelling reasons to presume that (illa&lor had
already been paid the amount o& 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos)
1irst, ,,, Ehat is surprising, ho%ever, is not so much his claims consisting o& gigantic
amounts as his having &orgotten to adduce evidence to prove his claim o& non7payment o& the
1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos during the investigation proceedings %hen he had all the
time and opportunity to do so) ,,, Dhe &act that he did not adduce or even attempt to adduce
evidence in support thereo& sho%s either that he had no evidence to o&&er ,,, that NA+0P0D
had already paid him in &act) Ehat is %orse is that (illa&lor did not even bother to command
payment, orally or in %riting, o& the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos %hich %as supposed to
be due him since August <, !:", the date %hen the order o& a%ard %as issued to Nasipit,
and %hen his cause o& action to recover payment had accrued) Dhe &act that he only made a
command @sicA &or payment on 'anuary 8, !<3, %hen he &iled his protest or t%enty7&our
@23A years later is immediately nugatory o& his claim &or non7payment)
5ut (illa&lor maintains that he had no 6no%ledge or notice that the order o& a%ard had
already been issued to NA+0P0D as he had gone to 0ndonesia and he had been absent &rom
the Philippines during all those t%enty7&our @23A years) Dhis o& course ta,es credulity) ,,,)
+econd, it should be understood that the condition that NA+0P0D should reimburse (illa&lor
the amount o& 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos upon its receipt o& the order o& a%ard %as
&ul&illed as said a%ard %as issued to NA+0P0D on August <, !:") Dhe said deed o&
relinquishment %as prepared and notari*ed in Manila %ith (illa&lor and NA+0P0D signing the
instrument also in Manila on August 4, !:" @p)<<, @sicAA) Dhe &ollo%ing day or barely a day
a&ter that, or on August <, !:", the order o& a%ard %as issued by this -&&ice to NA+0P0D
also in Manila) No%, considering that (illa&lor is presumed to be more assiduous in &ollo%ing
up %ith the 5ureau o& 2ands the e,peditious issuance o& the order o& a%ard as the payment o&
the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos @considerationA %ould depend on the issuance o& said
order to a%ard NA+0P0D, %ould it not be reasonable to believe that (illa&lor %as at hand %hen
the a%ard %as issued to NA+0P0D on August <, !:", or barely a day %hich @sicA he
e,ecuted the deed o& relinquishment on August 4, !:", in ManilaO ,,,)
Dhird, on the other hand, NA+0P0D has in his possession a sort o& LorderF upon itsel& 77 @the
deed o& relinquishment %herein he @sicA obligated itsel& to reimburse or pay (illa&lor the ,,,
consideration o& the relinquishment upon its receipt o& the order o& a%ardA &or the payment o&
the a&oresaid amount the moment the order o& a%ard is issued to it) 0t is reasonable to
presume that NA+0P0D has paid the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos to (illa&lor)
GA person in possession o& an order on himsel& &or the payment o& money, or the delivery o&
anything, has paid the money or delivered the thing accordingly) @+ection :@6A 5787Revised
Rules o& Court)H
0t should be noted that NA+0P0D did not produce direct evidence as proo& o& its payment o&
the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos to (illa&lor) NasipitHs e,planation on this point is &ound
satis&actory)
G, , , @0At %as virtually impossible &or NA+0P0D, a&ter the lapse o& the intervening 23 years, to
be able to cope up %ith all the records necessary to sho% that the consideration &or the deed
o& relinquishment had been &ully paid) Do e,pect NA+0P0D to 6eep intact all records pertinent
to the transaction &or the %hole quarter o& a century %ould be to require %hat even the la%
does not) 0ndeed, even the applicable la% itsel& @+ec) 88<, National 0nternal Revenue CodeA
requires that all records o& corporations be preserved &or only a ma,imum o& &ive years)
NA+0P0D may %ell have added that at any rate %hile Gthere are transactions %here the proper
evidence is impossible or e,tremely di&&icult to produce a&ter the lapse o& time ,,, the la%
creates presumptions o& regularity in &avor o& such transactions @2" Am) 'ur) 282A so that
%hen the basic &act is established in an action the e,istence o& the presumed &act must be
assumed by &orce o& la%) @Rule 8, Cni&orm Rules o& Evidence> ! Eigmore, +ec) 23!A)
Anent (illa&lorHs claim that the 3"7hectare land relinquished and a%arded to NA+0P0D is his
private property, little @needA be said) ,,,, Dhe trac6s o& land re&erred to therein are not
identical to the lands a%arded to NA+0P0D) Even in the assumption that the lands mentioned
in the deeds o& trans&er are the same as the 3"7hectare area a%arded to NA+0P0D, their
purchase by (illa&lor @orA the latterHs occupation o& the same did not change the character o&
the land &rom that o& public land to a private property) Dhe provision o& the la% is speci&ic that
public lands can only be acquired in the manner provided &or therein and not other%ise @+ec)
, C)A) No) 3, as amendedA) Dhe records sho% that (illa&lor had applied &or the purchase
o& the lands in question %ith this -&&ice @+ales Application No) (79"<A on ;ecember 2, !39)
,,,, Dhere is a condition in the sales application signed by (illa&lor to the e&&ect that he
recogni*es that the land covered by the same is o& public domain and any and all rights he
may have %ith respect thereto by virtue o& continuous occupation and cultivation are
relinquished to the Iovernment @paragraph 4, +ales Application No) (79"< ,,,A o& %hich
(illa&lor is very much a%are) 0t also appears that (illa&lor had paid &or the publication &ees
appurtenant to the sale o& the land) Be participated in the public auction %here he %as
declared the success&ul bidder) Be had &ully paid the purchase prive @sicA thereo& @sicA) 0t
%ould be a @sicA height o& absurdity &or (illa&lor to be buying that %hich is o%ned by him i& his
claim o& private o%nership thereo& is to be believed) Dhe most that can be said is that his
possession %as merely that o& a sales applicant to %hen it had not been a%arded because he
relinquished his interest therein in &avor o& NA+0P0D %ho @sicA &iled a sales application
there&or)
,,,
,,, ,,,
, , , ;uring the investigation proceedings, (illa&lor presented as his E,hibit G@sicAH @%hich
NA+0P0D adopted as its o%n e,hibit and had it mar6ed in evidence as E,hibit GHA a duly
notari*ed Gagreement to +ellH dated 'uly <, !39, by virtue o& %hich (illa&lor undertoo6 to sell
to Nasipit the tracts o& land mentioned therein, &or a consideration o& D%enty71our Dhousand
@P23,""")""A Pesos) +aid tracts o& land have been veri&ied to be identical to the parcels o&
land &ormerly applied &or by (illa&lor and %hich the latter had relinquished in &avor o& NA+0P0D
under a deed o& relinquishment e,ecuted by him on August 4, !:") 0n another document
e,ecuted on ;ecember <, !39 ,,, (illa&lor as G10R+D PARDKH and NA+0P0D as G+EC-N;
PARDKH con&irmed the GAgreement to +ellH o& 'uly <, !39, %hich %as maintained Gin &ull &orce
and e&&ect %ith all its terms and conditions , , ,H @E,h) G897AHA> and that G&or and in
consideration o& ,,, DEENDK 1-CR DB-C+AN; @P23,""")""A PE+-+ that the +econd Party
shall pay to the 1irst Party ,,, the 1irst Party hereby sells, trans&ers and conveys unto the
+econd Party ,,, his right interest and participation under and by virtue o& the +ales
Application No) (79"<H and, in its paragraph 9, it made stipulations as to %hen part o& the
said consideration ,,, %as paid and %hen the balance %as to be paid, to %it.
GaA the amount o& +E(EN DB-C+AN; ,,, PE+-+ has already been paid by the +econd Party
to the 1irst Party upon the e,ecution o& the Agreement to +ell, on 'uly <, !39>
bA the amount o& 10(E DB-C+AN; ,,, PE+-+ shall be paid upon the signing o& this present
agreement> and
cA the amount o& DEE2(E DB-C+AN; ,,, PE+-+, shall be paid upon the e,ecution by the
1irst Party o& the Absolute +ale o& the D%o parcels o& land in question in &avor o& the +econd
Party o& the Certi&icate o& -%nership o& the said t%o parcels o& land)H @E,h) 8975A) @Emphasis
oursA
0t is thus clear &rom this subsequent document mar6ed E,hibit H89 ANA2C-H that o& the
consideration o& the GAgreement to +ellH dated 'uly<, !39, involving the 3"7hectare area
relinquished by (illa&lor in &avor o& NA+0P0D, in the amount o& D%enty71our Dhousand
@P23,""")""A Pesos.
@A the amount o& +even Dhousand @P<,""")""A Pesos %as already paid upon the
e,ecution o& the GAgreement to +ellH on 'uly <, !39, receipt o& %hich incidentally %as
admitted by (illa&lor in the document o& ;ecember <, !39>
@2A the amount o& 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos %as paid %hen said document %as
signed by (icente ') (illa&lor as the 1irst Party and Nasipit thru its President, as the +econd
Party, on ;ecember <, !39> and
@8A the balance o& D%elve Dhousand @P2,""")""A Pesos to be paid upon the e,ecution
by the 1irst Party o& the Absolute ;eed o& +ale o& the t%o parcels o& land in &avor o& the
+econd Party, and upon delivery to the +econd Party o& the Certi&icate o& -%nership o& the
said t%o parcels o& land)
(illa&lor contends that NA+0P0D could not have paid (illa&lor the balance o& D%elve Dhousand
@P2,""")""A Pesos , , , consideration in the Agreement to +ell %ill only be paid to
applicant7assignor @re&erring to (illa&lorA upon obtaining a Dorrens Ditle in his &avor over the
3"7hectare o& land applied &or and upon e,ecution by him o& a ;eed o& Absolute +ale in
&avor o& Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc) , , ,) 0nasmuch as applicant7assignor %as not able to
obtain a Dorrens Ditle over the land in question he could not e,ecute an absolute ;eed o& @sicA
Nasipit 2umber Co), 0nc) Bence, the Agreement to +ell %as not carried out and no D%elve
Dhousand @P2,""")""A Pesos %as overpaid either to the applicant7assignor, much less to
Bo%ard ') Nell Company) @+ee MEM-RAN;CM 1-R DBE APP20CAND7A++0IN-R, dated
'anuary :, !<<A) ,,,)
,,, (illa&lor did not adduce evidence in support o& his claim that he had not been paid the
,,, @P2,""")""A ,,, consideration o& the Agreement to +ell dated 'uly <, !39 @E,h) G89
NA2C-HA beyond his mere uncorroborated assertions) -n the other hand, there is strong
evidence to sho% that said D%elve Dhousand @P2,""")""A Pesos had been paid by @private
respondentA to Ed%ard ') Nell Company by virtue o& the ;eed o& Assignment o& Credit
e,ecuted by (illa&lor @E,h) G3 NA2C-HA &or the credit o& the latter)
Atty) Iabriel 5anaag, resident counsel o& NA+0P0D %ho is in a position to 6no% the &acts,
testi&ied &or NA+0P0D) Be described that it %as he %ho notari*ed the GAgreement to +ellG @E,h)
G1HA> that he 6ne% about the e,ecution o& the document o& ;ecember <, !39 @E,h) G89HA
con&irming the said GAgreement to +ellH having been previously consulted thereon by 'ose
1ernande*, %ho signed said document on behal& o& NA+0P0D ,,, that subsequently, in 'anuary
!3!, (illa&lor e,ecuted a ;eed o& Assignment o& credit in &avor o& Ed%ard ') Nell Company
@E,h) G3 NA2C-HA %hereby (illa&lor ceded to the latter his receivable &or NA+0P0D
corresponding to the remaining balance in the amount o& D%elve Dhousand ,,, Pesos o& the
total consideration ,,, stipulated in both the GAgreement to +ellH @E,h) G1HA and the document
dated ;ecember <, !39 @E,h) G8!HA> ,,,) Be &urther testi&ied that the said assignment o&
credit %as communicated to @private respondentA under cover letter dated 'anuary 23, !3!
@E,h) G37AHA and not long therea&ter, by virtue o& the said assignment o& credit, @private
respondentA paid the balance o& D%elve Dhousand ,,, due to (illa&lor to Ed%ard ') Nell
Company ,,,) Atty) 5anaagHs a&oresaid testimony stand unrebutted> hence, must be given
&ull %eight and credit) ,,, (illa&lor and his counsel %ere present %hen Atty) 5anaagHs
&oregoing testimony %as given) Ket, (illa&lor did not demur, nor did he rebut the same,
despite having been accorded &ull opportunity to do so)
,,,
,,, ,,,
Baving &ound that both the 1ive Dhousand ,,, consideration o& the deed o& Relinquishment
,,, and that the remaining balance o& ,,, @P2,""")""A to complete the D%enty71our
Dhousand @P23,""")""A Pesos consideration o& both the Agreement to +ell dated 'uly <,
!39, and the document, dated ;ecember <, !39, e,ecuted by the &ormer in &avor o& the
latter, have been paid (illa&lor the issue on prescription and laches becomes academic and
needs no &urther discussion)
5ut more than all the questions thus &ar raised and resolved is the question %hether a sales
patent can be issued to NA+0P0D &or the 3"7hectare area a%arded to it in the light o& +ection
, Article J0( o& the ne% Constitution %hich provides in its pertinent portion to %it.
G, , , No private corporation or association may hold alienable land o& the public domain
e,cept by lease not to e,ceed one thousand hectares in area ,,,)H
Dhe +ecretary o& 'ustice had previous occasion to rule on this point in his opinion No) 3", s)
!<3) +aid the Bonorable 'ustice +ecretary.
G-n the second question, @re&erring to the questions %hen may a public land be considered to
have been acquired by purchase be&ore the e&&ectivity o& the ne% Constitution posed by the
;irector o& 2ands in his query on the e&&ect on pending applications &or the issuance o& sales
patent in the light o& +ection , Art) J0( o& the Ne% Constitution a&orecitedA, you re&er to
this -&&iceHs -pinion No) 43 series o& !<8 in %hich 0 stated.
-n the other hand, %ith respect to sales applications ready &or issuance o& sales patent, it is
my opinion that %here the applicant had, be&ore the Constitution too6 e&&ect, &ully complied
%ith all this obligations under the Public 2and Act in order to entitle him to a +ales patent,
there %ould be no legal or equitable =usti&ication &or re&using to issue or release the sales
patent)H
Eith respect to the point as to %hen the +ales applicant has complied %ith all the terms and
conditions %hich %ould entitle him to a sales patent, the herein above +ecretary o& 'ustice
%ent on.
GDhat as to %hen the applicant has complied %ith all the terms and conditions %hich %ould
entitle him to a patent is a questioned @sicA &act %hich your o&&ice %ould be in the best
position to determine) Bo%ever, relating this to the procedure &or the processing o&
applications mentioned above, 0 thin6 that as the applicant has &ul&illed the
construction?cultivation requirements and has &ully paid the purchase price, he should be
deemed to have acquired by purchase the particular tract o& land and @sicA the area @sicA in
the provision in question o& the ne% constitution %ould not apply)H
1rom the decision o& the ;irector o& 2ands, (illa&lor &iled a Motion &or
Reconsideration %hich %as considered as an Appeal M)N)R) Case 383, to the
Ministry o& Natural Resources)
-n 'une 4, !<!, the Minister o& Natural Resources rendered a ;ecision @e,h) !A,
#:$ dismissing the appeal and a&&irming the decision o& the ;irector o& 2ands,
pertinent portions o& %hich reads.
GA&ter a care&ul study o& the records and the arguments o& the parties, %e believe that the
appeal is not %ell ta6en)
1irstly, the area in dispute is not the private property o& appellant)
Dhe evidence adduced by appellant to establish his claim o& o%nership over the sub=ect area
consists o& deeds o& absolute sale e,ecuted in his &avor on 'anuary 4, and 1ebruary :,
!3", by &our @3A di&&erent persons, namely, Cirilo Piencenaves, 1ermin 5alobo, Claudio -tero
and Bermogenes Patete)
Bo%ever, an e,amination o& the technical descriptions o& the tracts o& land sub=ect o& the
deeds o& sale %ill disclose that said parcels are not identical to, and do not tally %ith, the area
in controversy)
G0t is a basic assumption o& our policy that lands o& %hatever classi&ication belong to the state)
Cnless alienated in accordance %ith la%, it retains its rights over the same as dominus,
@+antiago vs) de los +antos, 272"23, November 22, !<3, 4 +CRA :2A)
1or, it is %ell7settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons %ithout any
grant, e,press or implied &rom the government) 0t is indispensable then that there be
sho%ing o& title &rom the state or any other mode o& acquisition recogni*ed by la%)H @2ee Bong
Bo6, et al) vs) ;avid, et al), 278"89!, ;ecember 2<, !<2, 39 +CRA 8<!)A
0t is %ell7settled that all lands remain part o& the public domain unless severed there&rom by
state grant or unless alienated in accordance %ith la%)
Ee, there&ore, believe that the a&oresaid deeds o& sale do not constitute clear and convincing
evidence to establish that the contested area is o& private o%nership) Bence, the property
must be held to be public domain)
GDhere being no evidence %hatever that the property in question %as ever acquired by the
applicants or their ancestors either by composition title &rom the +panish Iovernment or by
possessory in&ormation title or by any other means &or the acquisition o& public lands, the
property must be held to be public domain)H @2ee Bong Bo6, et al), vs) ;avid , et al), 278"89!
;ecember 2<, !<2, 39 +CRA 8<978<! citing Beirs o& ;atu Pendatun vs) ;irector o& 2ands>
see also ;irector o& 2ands vs) Reyes, 272<:!3, November 29, !<:, 49 +CRA <<A)
5e that as it may, appellant, by &iling a sales application over the controverted land,
ac6no%ledged unequivocably #sic$ that the same is not his private property)
GAs such sales applicant, appellant mani&estly ac6no%ledged that he does not o%n the land
and that the same is a public land under the administration o& the 5ureau o& 2ands, to %hich
the application %as submitted, ,,, All o& its acts prior thereo&, including its real estate ta,
declarations, characteri*ed its possessions o& the land as that o& a Gsales applicantH and
consequently, as one %ho e,pects to buy it, but has not as yet done so, and is not, there&ore,
its o%ner)H @Pala%an Agricultural and 0ndustrial Co), 0nc) vs) ;irector o& 2ands, 272:!3, March
2, !<2, 33 +CRA 2", 2A)
+econdly, appellantHs alleged &ailure to pay the consideration stipulated in the deed o&
relinquishment neither converts said deed into one %ithout a cause or consideration nor ipso
&acto rescinds the same) Appellant, though, has the right to demand payment %ith legal
interest &or the delay or to demand rescission)
,,,
,,, ,,,
Bo%ever, appellantHs cause o& action, either &or speci&ic per&ormance or rescission o& contract,
%ith damages, lies %ithin the =urisdiction o& civil courts, not %ith administrative bodies)
,,,
,,, ,,,
2astly, appellee has acquired a vested right to the sub=ect area and, there&ore, is deemed not
a&&ected by the ne% constitutional provision that no private corporation may hold alienable
land o& the public domain e,cept by lease)
,,,
,,, ,,,
0mplementing the a&oresaid -pinion No) 43 o& the +ecretary o& 'ustice, the then +ecretary o&
Agriculture and Natural Resources issued a memorandum, dated 1ebruary 9, !<3, %hich
pertinently reads as &ollo%s.
G0n the implementation o& the &oregoing opinion, sales application o& private individuals
covering areas in e,cess o& 23 hectares and those o& corporations, associations, or
partnership %hich &all under any o& the &ollo%ing categories shall be given due course and
issued patents, to %it.
) +ales application &or &ishponds and &or agricultural purposes @+1A, +A and 0IP+AA
%herein prior to 'anuary <, !<8>
a) the land covered thereby %as a%arded>
b) cultivation requirements o& la% %ere complied %ith as sho%n by investigation reports
submitted prior to 'anuary <, !<8>
c) land %as surveyed and survey returns already submitted to the ;irector o& 2ands &or
veri&ication and approval> and
d) purchase price %as &ully paid)H
1rom the records, it is evident that the a&orestated requisites have been complied %ith by
appellee long be&ore 'anuary <, !<8, the e&&ectivity o& the Ne% Constitution) Do restate, the
disputed area %as a%arded to appellee on August <, !:", the purchase price %as &ully paid
on 'uly 24, !:, the cultivation requirements %ere complied %ith as per investigation report
dated ;ecember 8, !3!, and the land %as surveyed under Pls7!<)HF
-n 'uly 4, !<9, petitioner &iled a complaint#4$ in the trial court &or L;eclaration o& Nullity o&
Contract @;eed o& Relinquishment o& RightsA, Recovery o& Possession @o& t%o parcels o& land
sub=ect o& the contractA, and ;amagesF at about the same time that he appealed the decision
o& the Minister o& Natural Resources to the -&&ice o& the President)
-n 'anuary 29, !98, petitioner died) Dhe trial court ordered his %ido%, 2ourdes ;) (illa&lor,
to be substituted as petitioner) A&ter trial in due course, the then Court o& 1irst 0nstance o&
Agusan del Norte and 5utuan City, 5ranch 000,#<$ dismissed the complaint on the grounds
that. @A petitioner admitted the due e,ecution and genuineness o& the contract and %as
estopped &rom proving its nullity, @2A the verbal lease agreements %ere unen&orceable under
Article 3"8 @2A@eA o& the Civil Code, and @8A his causes o& action %ere barred by e,tinctive
prescription and?or laches) 0t ruled that there %as prescription and?or laches because the
alleged verbal lease ended in !44, but the action %as &iled only on 'anuary 4, !<9) Dhe si,7
year period %ithin %hich to &ile an action on an oral contract per Article 3: @A o& the Civil
Code e,pired in !<2) Dhe decretal portion#9$ o& the trial courtHs decision reads.
8EBERE1-RE, the &oregoing premises duly considered, =udgment is hereby
rendered in &avor o& the de&endant and against the plainti&&) Consequently, this
case is hereby ordered ;0+M0++E;) Dhe de&endant is hereby declared the la%&ul
actual physical possessor7occupant and having a better right o& possession over
the t%o @2A parcels o& land in litigation described in par) )2 o& the complaint as
Parcel 0 and Parcel 00, containing a total area o& -ne Bundred +i,ty @4"A hectares,
and %as then the sub=ect o& the +ales Application No) (79"< o& the plainti&&
@E,hibits , 7A, 75, pp) 32 to 327A, RecordA, and no% o& the +ales Application
No) 9"<, Entry No) (73"< o& the de&endant Nasipit 2umber Company @E,hibit K, pp)
8:<78:9, RecordA) Dhe Agreements to +ell Real Rights, E,hibits 2 to 27C, 8 to 875,
and the ;eed o& Relinquishment o& Rights, E,hibits N to N7, over the t%o parcels
o& land in litigation are hereby declared binding bet%een the plainti&& and the
de&endant, their successors and assigns)
;ouble the costs against the plainti&&)F
Dhe heirs o& petitioner appealed to Respondent Court o& Appeals#!$ %hich, ho%ever,
rendered =udgment against petitioner via the assailed ;ecision dated +eptember 2<, !!"
&inding petitionerHs prayers 77 @A &or the declaration o& nullity o& the deed o& relinquishment,
@2A &or the eviction o& private respondent &rom the property and @8A &or the declaration o&
petitionerHs heirs as o%ners V to be %ithout basis) Dhe decretal portion#2"$ o& the assailed 3!7
page, single7spaced ;ecision curtly reads.
8EBERE1-RE, the ;ecision appealed &rom, is hereby A110RME;, %ith costs against
plainti&&7appellants)F
Not satis&ied, petitionerHs heirs &iled the instant :<7page petition &or revie% dated ;ecember
<, !!") 0n a Resolution dated 'une 28, !!, the Court denied this petition L&or being late)F
-n reconsideration 77 upon plea o& counsel that petitioners %ere LpoorF and that a &ull
decision on the merits should be rendered 77 the Court reinstated the petition and required
comment &rom private respondent) Eventually, the petition %as granted due course and the
parties thus &iled their respective memoranda)
Dhe 0ssues
Petitioner, through his heirs, attributes the &ollo%ing errors to the Court o& Appeals.
80) Are the &indings o& the Court o& Appeals conclusive and binding upon the
+upreme CourtO
00) Are the &indings o& the Court o& Appeals &orti&ied by the similar &indings made by
the ;irector o& 2ands and the Minister o& Natural Resources @as %ell as by the
-&&ice o& the PresidentAO
000) Eas there G&orum shoppingOH
0() Are the &indings o& &acts o& the Court o& Appeals and the trial court supported by
the evidence and the la%O
() Are the &indings o& the Court o& Appeals supported by the very terms o& the
contracts %hich %ere under consideration by the said courtO
(0) ;id the Court o& Appeals, in construing the sub=ect contracts, consider the
contemporaneous and subsequent act o& the parties pursuant to article 8< o& the
Civil CodeO
(00) ;id the Court o& Appeals consider the &act and the unre&uted claim o& (illa&lor
that he never 6ne% o& the a%ard in &avor o& NasipitO
(000) ;id the Court o& Appeals correctly apply the rules on evidence in its &indings
that (illa&lor %as paid the P:,""")"" consideration because (illa&lor did not adduce
any proo& that he %as not paidO
0J) 0s the Court o& AppealsG conclusion that the contract is not simulated or
&ictitious simply because it is genuine and duly e,ecuted by the parties, supported
by logic or the la%O
J) May the prestations in a contract agreeing to trans&er certain rights constitute
estoppel %hen this very contract is the sub=ect o& an action &or annulment on the
ground that it is &ictitiousO
J0) 0s the Court o& AppealsG conclusion that the lease agreement bet%een (illa&lor
is verbal and there&ore, unen&orceable supported by the evidence and the la%OF
A&ter a revie% o& the various submissions o& the parties, particularly those o& petitioner, this
Court believes and holds that the issues can be condensed into three as &ollo%s.
@A ;id the Court o& Appeals err in adopting or relying on the &actual &indings o&
the 5ureau o& 2ands, especially those a&&irmed by the Minister @no% +ecretaryA o&
Natural Resources and the trial courtO
@2A ;id the Court o& Appeals err in upholding the validity o& the contracts to sell
and the deed o& relinquishmentO -ther%ise stated, did the Court o& Appeals err in
&inding the deed o& relinquishment o& rights and the contracts to sell valid, and not
simulated or &ictitiousO
@8A 0s the private respondent quali&ied to acquire title over the disputed
propertyO
The Courts Ruli!
Dhe petition is bere&t o& merit) 0t basically questions the su&&iciency o& the evidence relied
upon by the Court o& Appeals, alleging that public respondentHs &actual &indings %ere based on
speculations, surmises and con=ectures) Petitioner insists that a revie% o& those &indings is in
order because they %ere allegedly @A rooted, not on speci&ic evidence, but on conclusions
and in&erences o& the ;irector o& 2ands %hich %ere, in turn, based on misapprehension o& the
applicable la% on simulated contracts> @2A arrived at %himsically 77 totally ignoring the
substantial and admitted &act that petitioner %as not noti&ied o& the a%ard in &avor o& private
respondent> and @8A grounded on errors and misapprehensions, particularly those relating to
the identity o& the disputed area)
First Issue: $ri#ar+ Juris*ictio o, the Director o, (a*s a* Fialit+ o, Factual
Fi*i!s o, the Court o, '""eals
Cnderlying the rulings o& the trial and appellate courts is the doctrine o& primary =urisdiction>
i)e), courts cannot and %ill not resolve a controversy involving a question %hich is %ithin the
=urisdiction o& an administrative tribunal, especially %here the question demands the e,ercise
o& sound administrative discretion requiring the special 6no%ledge, e,perience and services o&
the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters o& &act)#2$
0n recent years, it has been the =urisprudential trend to apply this doctrine to cases involving
matters that demand the special competence o& administrative agencies even i& the question
involved is also =udicial in character) 0t applies L%here a claim is originally cogni*able in the
courts, and comes into play %henever en&orcement o& the claim requires the resolution o&
issues %hich, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed %ithin the special competence o&
an administrative body> in such case, the =udicial process is suspended pending re&erral o&
such issues to the administrative body &or its vie%)F#22$
0n cases %here the doctrine o& primary =urisdiction is clearly applicable, the court cannot
arrogate unto itsel& the authority to resolve a controversy, the =urisdiction over %hich is
initially lodged %ith an administrative body o& special competence)#28$ 0n Machete vs) Court
o& Appeals, the Court upheld the primary =urisdiction o& the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm
Ad=udicatory 5oard @;ARA5A in an agrarian dispute over the payment o& bac6 rentals under a
leasehold contract)#23$ 0n Concerned -&&icials o& the Metropolitan Eater%or6s and +e%erage
+ystem vs) (asque*,#2:$ the Court recogni*ed that the ME++ %as in the best position to
evaluate and to decide %hich bid &or a %ater%or6s pro=ect %as compatible %ith its
development plan)
Dhe rationale underlying the doctrine o& primary =urisdiction &inds application in this case,
since the questions on the identity o& the land in dispute and the &actual quali&ication o&
private respondent as an a%ardee o& a sales application require a technical determination by
the 5ureau o& 2ands as the administrative agency %ith the e,pertise to determine such
matters) 5ecause these issues preclude prior =udicial determination, it behooves the courts to
stand aside even %hen they apparently have statutory po%er to proceed, in recognition o& the
primary =urisdiction o& the administrative agency)#24$
8-ne thrust o& the multiplication o& administrative agencies is that the
interpretation o& contracts and the determination o& private rights thereunder is no
longer a uniquely =udicial &unction, e,ercisable only by our regular courtsF#2<$
Petitioner initiated his action %ith a protest be&ore the 5ureau o& 2ands and &ollo%ed it
through in the Ministry o& Natural Resources and therea&ter in the -&&ice o& the President)
Consistent %ith the doctrine o& primary =urisdiction, the trial and the appellate courts had
reason to rely on the &indings o& these speciali*ed administrative bodies)
Dhe primary =urisdiction o& the director o& lands and the minister o& natural resources over the
issues regarding the identity o& the disputed land and the quali&ication o& an a%ardee o& a
sales patent is established by +ections 8 and 3 o& Common%ealth Act No) 3, also 6no%n as
the Public 2and Act.
8+ection 8) Dhe +ecretary o& Agriculture and Commerce @no% +ecretary o& Natural
ResourcesA shall be the e,ecutive o&&icer charged %ith carrying out the provisions
o& this Act through the ;irector o& 2ands, %ho shall act under his immediate
control)F
L+ection 3) +ub=ect to said control, the ;irector o& 2ands shall have direct
e,ecutive control o& the survey, classi&ication, lease, sale or any other &orm o&
concession or disposition and management o& the lands o& the public domain, and
his decision as to questions o& &act shall be conclusive %hen approved by the
+ecretary o& Agriculture and Commerce)F
Dhus, the ;irector o& 2ands, in his decision, said.#29$
8, , , 0t is merely %hether or not (illa&lor has been paid the 1ive Dhousand
@P:,""")""A Pesos stipulated consideration o& the deed o& relinquishment made by
him %ithout touching on the nature o& the deed o& relinquishment) Dhe
administration and disposition o& public lands is primarily vested in the ;irector o&
2ands and ultimately %ith the +ecretary o& Agriculture and Natural Resources @no%
+ecretary o& Natural ResourcesA, and to this end77
G-ur +upreme Court has recogni*ed that the ;irector o& 2ands is a quasi7=udicial o&&icer %ho
passes on issues o& mi,ed &acts and la% @-rtua vs) 5ingson Encarnacion, :! Phil 33"A)
+ections 8 and 3 o& the Public 2and 2a% thus mean that the +ecretary o& Agriculture and
Natural Resources shall be the &inal arbiter on questions o& &act in public land con&licts @Beirs
o& (arela vs) Aquino, < Phil 4!> 'ulian vs) Apostol, :2 Phil 332A)G
Dhe ruling o& this -&&ice in its order dated +eptember ", !<:, is %orth reiterating, thus.
G, , , it is our opinion that in the e,ercise o& his po%er o& e,ecutive control, administrative
disposition and allegation o& public land, the ;irector o& 2ands should entertain the protest o&
(illa&lor and conduct &ormal investigation ,,, to determine the &ollo%ing points. @aA %hether
or not the Nasipit 2umber Company, 0nc) paid or reimbursed to (illa&lor the consideration o&
the rights in the amount o& P:,""")"" and %hat evidence the company has to prove
payment, the relinquishment o& rights being part o& the administrative process in the
disposition o& the land in question ,,,)
,,,, 5esides, the authority o& the ;irector o& 2ands to pass upon and determine questions
considered inherent in or essential to the e&&icient e,ercise o& his po%ers li6e the incident at
issue, i)e) , %hether (illa&lor had been paid or not, is conceded by la%)GF
Reliance by the trial and the appellate courts on the &actual &indings o& the ;irector o& 2ands
and the Minister o& Natural Resources is not misplaced) 5y reason o& the special 6no%ledge
and e,pertise o& said administrative agencies over matters &alling under their =urisdiction,
they are in a better position to pass =udgment thereon> thus, their &indings o& &act in that
regard are generally accorded great respect, i& not &inality,#2!$ by the courts)#8"$ Dhe
&indings o& &act o& an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported
by substantial evidence, even i& such evidence might not be over%helming or even
preponderant) 0t is not the tas6 o& an appellate court to %eigh once more the evidence
submitted be&ore the administrative body and to substitute its o%n =udgment &or that o& the
administrative agency in respect o& su&&iciency o& evidence)#8$
Bo%ever, the rule that &actual &indings o& an administrative agency are accorded respect and
even &inality by courts admits o& e,ceptions) Dhis is true also in assessing &actual &indings o&
lo%er courts)#82$ 0t is incumbent on the petitioner to sho% that the resolution o& the &actual
issues by the administrative agency and?or by the trial court &alls under any o& the
e,ceptions) -ther%ise, this Court %ill not disturb such &indings)#88$
Ee mention and quote e,tensively &rom the rulings o& the 5ureau o& 2ands and the Minister o&
Natural Resources because the points, questions and issues raised by petitioner be&ore the
trial court, the appellate court and no% be&ore this Court are basically the same as those
brought up be&ore the a&oresaid speciali*ed administrative agencies) As held by the Court o&
Appeals.#83$
8Ee &ind that the contentious points raised by appellant in this action, are
substantially the same matters he raised in 52 Claim No) 9<8 @NA) 0n both actions,
he claimed private o%nership over the land in question, assailed the validity and
e&&ectiveness o& the ;eed o& Relinquishment o& Rights he e,ecuted in August 4,
!:", that he had not been paid the P:,""")"" consideration, the value o& the
improvements he introduced on the land and other e,penses incurred by him)F
0n this instance, both the principle o& primary =urisdiction o& administrative agencies and the
doctrine o& &inality o& &actual &indings o& the trial courts, particularly %hen a&&irmed by the
Court o& Appeals as in this case, militate against petitionerHs cause) 0ndeed, petitioner has not
given us su&&icient reason to deviate &rom them)
(a* i Dis"ute Is $u-lic (a*
Petitioner argues that even i& the technical description in the deeds o& sale and those in the
sales application %ere not identical, the area in dispute remains his private property) Be
alleges that the deeds did not contain any technical description, as they %ere e,ecuted prior
to the survey conducted by the 5ureau o& 2ands> thus, the properties sold %ere merely
described by re&erence to natural boundaries) Bis private o%nership thereo& %as also
allegedly attested to by private respondentHs &ormer &ield manager in the latterHs 1ebruary 22,
!:" letter, %hich contained an admission that the land leased by private respondent %as
covered by the sales application)
Dhis contention is specious) Dhe lac6 o& technical description did not prove that the &inding o&
the ;irector o& 2ands lac6ed substantial evidence) Bere, the issue is not so much %hether the
sub=ect land is identical %ith the property purchased by petitioner) Dhe issue, rather, is
%hether the land covered by the sales application is private or public land) 0n his sales
application, petitioner e,pressly admitted that said property %as public land) Dhis is
&ormidable evidence as it amounts to an admission against interest)
0n the e,ercise o& his primary =urisdiction over the issue, ;irector o& 2ands Casanova ruled
that the land %as public.#8:$
8, , , Even @oAn the assumption that the lands mentioned in the deeds o& trans&er
are the same as the 3"7hectare area a%arded to Nasipit, their purchase by
(illa&lor @orA the latterHs occupation o& the same did not change the character o& the
land &rom that o& public land to a private property) Dhe provision o& the la% is
speci&ic that public lands can only be acquired in the manner provided &or therein
and not other%ise @+ec) , C)A) No) 3, as amendedA) Dhe records sho% that
(illa&lor had applied &or the purchase o& lands in question %ith this -&&ice @+ales
Application No) (79"<A on ;ecember 2, !39) ,,, Dhere is a condition in the sales
application ,,, to the e&&ect that he recogni*es that the land covered by the same
is o& public domain and any and all rights he may have %ith respect thereto by
virtue o& continuous occupation and cultivation are relinquished to the Iovernment
@paragraph 4, +ales Application No) (79"< o& (icente ') (illa&lor, p) 2, carpetaA o&
%hich (illa&lor is very much a%are) 0t also appears that (illa&lor had paid &or the
publication &ees appurtenant to the sale o& the land) Be participated in the public
auction %here he %as declared the success&ul bidder) Be had &ully paid the
purchase prive @sicA thereor @sicA) 0t %ould be a @sicA height o& absurdity &or
(illa&lor to be buying that %hich is o%ned by him i& his claim o& private o%nership
thereo& is to be believed) ,,,)F
Dhis &inding %as a&&irmed by the Minister o& Natural Resources.#84$
81irstly, the area in dispute is not the private property o& appellant @herein
petitionerA)
Dhe evidence adduced by @petitionerA to establish his claim o& o%nership over the
sub=ect area consists o& deeds o& absolute sale e,ecuted in his &avor ,,,)
Bo%ever, an e,amination o& the technical descriptions o& the tracts o& land sub=ect
o& the deeds o& sale %ill disclose that said parcels are not identical to, and do not
tally %ith, the area in controversy)
G0t is a basic assumption o& our policy that lands o& %hatever classi&ication belong to the state)
Cnless alienated in accordance %ith la%, it retains its rights over the same as dominus)
@+antiago vs) de los +antos, 272"23, November 22, !<3, 4 +CRA :2A)
1or it is %ell7settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons %ithout any grant,
e,press or implied &rom the government) 0t is indispensable then that there be sho%ing o&
title &rom the state or any other mode o& acquisition recogni*ed by la%) @2ee Bong Bo6, et al)
vs) ;avid, et al), 278"89!, ;ecember 2<, !<2, 39 +CRA 8<!A)H
,,,
,,,
,,, ,,,
Ee, there&ore, believe that the a&oresaid deeds o& sale do not constitute clear and
convincing evidence to establish that the contested area is o& private o%nership)
Bence, the property must be held to be public domain)
GDhere being no evidence %hatever that the property in question %as ever acquired by the
applicants or their ancestors either by composition title &rom the +panish Iovernment or by
possessory in&ormation title or by any other means &or the acquisition o& public lands, the
property must be held to be public domain)H
5e that as it may, #petitioner$, by &iling a sales application over the controverted
land, ac6no%ledged unequivocably #sic$ that the same is not his private property)
GAs such sales applicant mani&estly ac6no%ledged that he does not o%n the land and that the
same is a public land under the administration o& the 5ureau o& 2ands, to %hich the
application %as submitted, ,,, All o& its acts prior thereo&, including its real estate ta,
declarations, characteri*ed its possessions o& the land as that o& a Gsales applicantH) And
consequently, as one %ho e,pects to buy it, but has not as yet done so, and is not, there&ore,
its o%ner)H@Pala%an Agricultural and 0ndustrial Co), 0nc) vs) ;irector o& 2ands, 272:!3, March
2, !<2, 33 +CRA :A)F
Clearly, this issue &alls under the primary =urisdiction o& the ;irector o& 2ands because its
resolution requires Lsurvey, classi&ication, ,,, disposition and management o& the lands o&
the public domain)F 0t &ollo%s that his rulings deserve great respect) As petitioner &ailed to
sho% that this &actual &inding o& the ;irector o& 2ands %as unsupported by substantial
evidence, it assumes &inality) Dhus, both the trial and the appellate courts correctly relied on
such &inding)#8<$ Ee can do no less)
Seco* Issue: &o Si#ulatio o, Cotracts $ro.e
Petitioner insists that contrary to Article 8<#89$ o& the Civil Code, Respondent Court
erroneously ignored the contemporaneous and subsequent acts o& the parties> hence, it &ailed
to ascertain their true intentions) Bo%ever, the rule on the interpretation o& contracts that
%as alluded to by petitioner is used in a&&irming, not negating, their validity) Dhus, Article
8<8,#8!$ %hich is a con=unct o& Article 8<, provides that, i& the instrument is susceptible
o& t%o or more interpretations, the interpretation %hich %ill ma6e it valid and e&&ectual should
be adopted) 0n this light, it is not di&&icult to understand that the legal basis urged by
petitioner does not support his allegation that the contracts to sell and the deed o&
relinquishment are simulated and &ictitious) Properly understood, such rules on interpretation
even negate petitionerHs thesis)
5ut let us indulge the petitioner a%hile and determine %hether the cited contemporaneous
and subsequent acts o& the parties support his allegation o& simulation) Petitioner asserts that
the relinquishment o& rights and the agreements to sell %ere simulated because, &irst, the
language and terms o& said contracts negated private respondentHs acquisition o& o%nership
o& the land in issue> and second, contemporaneous and subsequent communications bet%een
him and private respondent allegedly sho%ed that the latter admitted that petitioner o%ned
and occupied the t%o parcels> i)e), that private respondent %as not applying &or said parcels
but %as interested only in the t%o hectares it had leased, and that private respondent
supported petitionerHs application &or a patent)
Petitioner e,plains that the Agreement to +ell dated ;ecember <, !39 did not and could not
trans&er o%nership because paragraph 9 @cA thereo& stipulates that the Lbalance o& t%elve
thousand pesos @P2,""")""A shall be paid upon the e,ecution by the 1irst Party #petitioner$
o& the Absolute ;eed o& +ale o& the t%o parcels o& land in question in &avor o& the +econd
Party, and upon delivery to the +econd Party #private respondent$ o& the Certi&icate o&
-%nership o& the said t%o parcels o& land)F Dhe mortgage provisions in paragraphs 4 and < o&
the agreement state that the P<,""")"" and P:,""")"" %ere Learnest money or a loan %ith
antichresis by the &ree occupancy and use given to Nasipit o& the 3" hectares o& land not
anymore as a lessee)F 0& the agreement to sell trans&erred o%nership to Nasipit, then %hy %as
it necessary to require petitioner, in a second agreement, to mortgage his property in the
event o& non&ul&illment o& the prestations in the &irst agreementO
Drue, the agreement to sell did not absolutely trans&er o%nership o& the land to private
respondent) Dhis &act, ho%ever, does not sho% that the agreement %as simulated) PetitionerHs
delivery o& the Certi&icate o& -%nership and e,ecution o& the deed o& absolute sale %ere
suspensive conditions, %hich gave rise to a corresponding obligation on the part o& the
private respondent, i)e), the payment o& the last installment o& the consideration mentioned in
the ;ecember <, !39 Agreement) +uch conditions did not a&&ect the per&ection o& the
contract or prove simulation) Neither did the mortgage)
+imulation occurs %hen an apparent contract is a declaration o& a &ictitious %ill, deliberately
made by agreement o& the parties, in order to produce, &or the purpose o& deception, the
appearance o& a =uridical act %hich does not e,ist or is di&&erent &rom that %hich %as really
e,ecuted)#3"$ +uch an intention is not apparent in the agreements) Dhe intent to sell, on the
other hand, is as clear as daylight)
Petitioner alleges &urther that the deed o& relinquishment o& right did not give &ull e&&ect to the
t%o agreements to sell, because the preliminary clauses o& the deed allegedly served only to
give private respondent an interest in the property as a &uture o%ner thereo& and to enable
respondent to &ollo% up petitionerHs sales application)
Ee disagree) +uch an intention is not indicated in the deed) -n the contrary, a real and
&actual sale is evident in paragraph 4 thereo&, %hich states. LDhat the Nasipit 2umber Co),
0nc), ,,, is very much interested in acquiring the land covered by the a&orecited application
to be used &or purposes o& mechani*ed &armingF and the penultimate paragraph stating. L,,,
(0CENDE ') (022A12-R, hereby voluntarily renounce and relinquish %hatever rights to, and
interests 0 have in the land covered by my above7mentioned application in &avor o& the
Nasipit 2umber Co), 0nc)F
Ee also hold that no simulation is sho%n either in the letter, dated ;ecember 8, !<8, o& the
&ormer &ield manager o& private respondent, Ieorge Mear) A pertinent portion o& the letter
reads.
8@aAs regards your property at Acacia, +an Mateo, 0 recall that %e made some sort
o& agreement &or the occupancy, but 0 no longer recall the details and 0 had
&orgotten %hether or not %e actually did occupy your land) 5ut i&, as you say, %e
did occupy it, then 0 am sure that the Company is obligated to pay a rental)F
Dhe letter did not contain any e,press admission that private respondent %as still leasing the
land &rom petitioner as o& that date) According to Mear, he could no longer recall the details o&
his agreement %ith petitioner) Dhis cannot be read as evidence o& the simulation o& either the
deed o& relinquishment or the agreements to sell) 0t is evidence merely o& an honest lac6 o&
recollection)
Petitioner also alleges that he continued to pay realty ta,es on the land even a&ter the
e,ecution o& said contracts) Dhis is immaterial because payment o& realty ta,es does not
necessarily prove o%nership, much less simulation o& said contracts)#3$
&o"a+#et o, the Cosi*eratio
Di* &ot $ro.e Si#ulatio
Petitioner insists that nonpayment o& the consideration in the contracts proves their
simulation) Ee disagree) Nonpayment, at most, gives him only the right to sue &or collection)
Ienerally, in a contract o& sale, payment o& the price is a resolutory condition and the remedy
o& the seller is to e,act &ul&illment or, in case o& a substantial breach, to rescind the contract
under Article ! o& the Civil Code)#32$ Bo%ever, &ailure to pay is not even a breach, but
merely an event %hich prevents the vendorHs obligation to convey title &rom acquiring binding
&orce)#38$
Petitioner also argues that Respondent Court violated evidentiary rules in upholding the ruling
o& the ;irector o& 2ands that petitioner did not present evidence to sho% private respondentHs
&ailure to pay him) Ee disagree) Prior to the amendment o& the rules on evidence on March
3, !9!, +ection , Rule 8, states that each party must prove his or her o%n a&&irmative
allegations)#33$ Dhus, the burden o& proo& in any cause rested upon the party %ho, as
determined by the pleadings or the nature o& the case, asserts the a&&irmative o& an issue and
remains there until the termination o& the action)#3:$ Although nonpayment is a negative &act
%hich need not be proved, the party see6ing payment is still required to prove the e,istence
o& the debt and the &act that it is already due)#34$
Petitioner sho%ed the e,istence o& the obligation %ith the presentation o& the contracts, but
did not present any evidence that he demanded payment &rom private respondent) Dhe
demand letters dated 'anuary 2 and :, !<3 @E,hs) L'F and LCFA, adduced in evidence by
petitioner, %ere &or the payment o& bac6 rentals, damages to improvements and
reimbursement o& acquisition costs and realty ta,es, not payment arising &rom the contract to
sell)
Dhus, %e cannot &ault Respondent Court &or adopting the &inding o& the ;irector o& 2ands that
petitioner Lo&&ered no evidence to support his claim o& nonpayment beyond his o%n sel&7
serving assertions,F as he did not even demand Lpayment, orally or in %riting, o& the &ive
thousand @P:,""")""A pesos %hich %as supposed to be due him since August <, !:", the
date %hen the order o& a%ard %as issued to Nasipit, and %hen his cause o& action to recover
payment had accrued)F Nonpayment o& the consideration in the contracts to sell or the deed
o& relinquishment %as raised &or the &irst time in the protest &iled %ith the 5ureau o& 2ands on
'anuary 8, !<3) 5ut this protest letter %as not the demand letter required by la%)
Petitioner alleges that the assignment o& credit and the letter o& the &ormer &ield manager o&
private respondent are contemporaneous and subsequent acts revealing the nonpayment o&
the consideration) Be maintains that the P2,""")"" credit assigned pertains to the
P:,""")"" and P<,""")"" initial payments in the ;ecember <, !39 Agreement, because the
balance o& P2,""")"" %as not yet Ldue and accruing)F Dhis is consistent, he argues, %ith the
representation that private respondent %as not interested in &iling a sales application over the
land in issue and that Nasipit %as instead supporting petitionerHs application thereto in MearHs
letter to the ;irector o& 2ands dated 1ebruary 22, !:" @E,h) LJFA)#3<$
Dhis argument is too strained to be acceptable) Dhe assignment o& credit did not establish the
nondelivery o& these initial payments o& the total consideration) 1irst, the assignment o& credit
happened on 'anuary !, !3!, or a month a&ter the signing o& the ;ecember <, !39
Agreement and almost si, months a&ter the 'uly <, !39 Agreement to +ell) +econd, it does
not overcome the recitation in the Agreement o& ;ecember <, !39. L,,, aA Dhe amount o&
+E(EN DB-C+AN; @P<,""")""A PE+-+ has already been paid by the +econd Party to the 1irst
Party upon the e,ecution o& the Agreement to +ell, on 'uly <, !39> bA Dhe amount o& 10(E
DB-C+AN; @P:,""")""A PE+-+ shall be paid upon the signing o& this present agreement>
,,,)F
Aside &rom these &acts, the ;irector o& 2ands &ound evidence o& greater %eight sho%ing that
payment %as actually made.#39$
8, , , @DAhere is strong evidence to sho% that said ,,, @P2,""")""A had been
paid by NA+0P0D to Ed%ard ') Nell Company by virtue o& the ;eed o& Assignment o&
Credit e,ecuted by (illa&lor @E,h) L3 NA2C-FA &or the credit o& the latter)
Atty) Iabriel 5anaag, resident counsel o& NA+0P0D ,,, declared that it %as he %ho
notari*ed the GAgreement to +ellH @E,h) L1FA> ,,,, that subsequently, in 'anuary
!3!, (illa&lor e,ecuted a ;eed o& Assignment o& credit in &avor o& Ed%ard ') Nell
Company @E,h) L3 NA2C-FA %hereby (illa&lor ceded to the latter his receivable &or
NA+0P0D corresponding to the remaining balance in the amount o& ,,,
@P2,""")""A ,,, o& the total consideration ,,,,> Be &urther testi&ied that the said
assignment ,,, %as communicated to NA+0P0D under cover letter dated 'anuary
23, !3! @E,h) L37AFA and not long therea&ter, by virtue o& the said assignment o&
credit, NA+0P0D paid the balance ,,, to Ed%ard ') Nell Company @p) :9, bidA) Atty)
5anaagHs a&oresaid testimony stand unrebutted> hence, must be given &ull %eight
and credit)
,,,
,,, ,,,)F
Dhe ;irector o& 2ands also &ound that there had been payment o& the consideration in the
relinquishment o& rights.#3!$
8-n the other hand, there are strong and compelling reasons to presume that
(illa&lor had already been paid the amount o& 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos)
1irst, , , , Ehat is surprising, ho%ever, is not so much his claims consisting o&
gigantic amounts as his having &orgotten to adduce evidence to prove his claim o&
non7payment o& the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos during the investigation
proceedings %hen he had all the time and opportunity to do so) ,,,, Dhe &act that
he did not adduce or even attempt to adduce evidence in support thereo& sho%s
either that he had no evidence to o&&er o& that NA+0P0D had already paid him in
&act) Ehat is %orse is that (illa&lor did not even bother to command payment,
orally or in %riting, o& the 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos %hich %as supposed to
be due him since August <, !:", the date %hen the order o& a%ard %as issued to
Nasipit, and %hen his cause o& action to recover payment had accrued) Dhe &act
that he only made a command &or payment on 'anuary 8, !<3, %hen he &iled his
protest or t%enty7&our @23A years later is immediately nugatory o& his claim &or
non7payment)
5ut (illa&lor maintains that he had no 6no%ledge or notice that the order o& a%ard
had already been issued to NA+0P0D as he had gone to 0ndonesia and he had been
absent &rom the Philippines during all those t%enty7&our @23A years) Dhis o& course
ta,es credulity),,,,
G , , , 0t is more in 6eeping %ith the ordinary course o& things that he should have acquired
in&ormation as to %hat %as transpiring in his a&&airs in Manila , , ,)G
+econd, it should be understood that the condition that NA+0P0D should reimburse
(illa&lor the amount o& 1ive Dhousand @P:,""")""A Pesos upon its receipt o& the
order o& a%ard %as &ul&illed as said a%ard %as issued to NA+0P0D on August <,
!:") Dhe said deed o& relinquishment %as prepared and notari*ed in Manila %ith
(illa&lor and NA+0P0D signing the instrument also in Manila) No%, considering that
(illa&lor is presumed to be more assiduous in &ollo%ing up %ith the 5ureau o& 2ands
the e,peditious issuance o& the order o& a%ard as the @considerationA %ould
depend on the issuance o& said order to a%ard NA+0P0D, %ould it not be reasonable
to believe that (illa&lor %as at hand %hen the a%ard %as issued to NA+0P0D on
August <, !:", or barely a day %hich he e,ecuted the deed o& relinquishment on
August 4, !:", in ManilaO ,,,,)
Dhird, on the other hand, NA+0P0D has in his possession a sort o& LorderF upon
itsel& 77 @the deed o& relinquishment %herein he@sicA obligated itsel& to reimburse or
pay (illa&lor the ,,, consideration o& the relinquishment upon its receipt o& the
order o& a%ardA &or the payment o& the a&oresaid amount the moment the order o&
a%ard is issued to it) 0t is reasonable to presume that NA+0P0D has paid the
@considerationA to (illa&lor)
,,,
,,, ,,,
, , , @0At %as virtually impossible &or NA+0P0D, a&ter the lapse o& the intervening 23
years, to be able to cope up %ith all the records necessary to sho% that the
consideration &or the deed o& relinquishment had been &ully paid) Do e,pect
NA+0P0D to 6eep intact all records pertinent to the transaction &or the %hole
quarter o& a century %ould be to require %hat even the la% does not) 0ndeed, even
the applicable la% itsel& @+ec) 88<, National 0nternal Revenue CodeA requires that
all records o& corporations be preserved &or only a ma,imum o& &ive years)
NA+0P0D may %ell have added that at any rate %hile there are transactions %here
the proper evidence is impossible or e,tremely di&&icult to produce a&ter the lapse
o& time ,,, the la% creates presumptions o& regularity in &avor o& such transactions
@2" Am) 'ur) 282A so that %hen the basic &act is established in an action the
e,istence o& the presumed &act must be assumed by &orce o& la%) @Rule 8,
Cni&orm Rules o& Evidence> ! Eigmore, +ec) 23!A)F
Dhe Court also notes that MearHs letter o& 1ebruary 22, !:" %as sent si, months prior to the
e,ecution o& the deed o& relinquishment o& right) At the time o& its %riting, private respondent
had not per&ected its o%nership o& the land to be able to quali&y as a sales applicant) 5esides,
although he %as a party to the 'uly <, !39 Agreement to +ell, Mear %as not a signatory to
the ;eed o& Relinquishment or to the ;ecember <, !39 Agreement to +ell) Dhus, he cannot
be e,pected to 6no% the e,istence o& and the amendments to the later contracts) Dhese
circumstances e,plain the mista6en representations, not misrepresentations, in said letter)
(ac/ o, &otice o, the '0ar*
Petitioner insists that private respondent suppressed evidence, pointing to his not having
been noti&ied o& the -rder o& A%ard dated August <, !:")#:"$ At the bottom o& page 2 o&
the order, petitioner %as not listed as one o& the parties %ho %ere to be &urnished a copy by
;irector o& 2ands 'ose P) ;ans) Petitioner also posits that Public 2and 0nspector +ulpicio A)
Dae*a irregularly received the copies &or both private respondent and the city treasurer o&
5utuan City) Dhe lac6 o& notice &or petitioner can be easily e,plained) Plainly, petitioner %as
not entitled to said notice o& a%ard &rom the ;irector o& 2ands, because by then, he had
already relinquished his rights to the disputed land in &avor o& private respondent) 0n the
heading o& the order, he %as re&erred to as sales applicant7assignor) 0n paragraph number 3,
the order stated that, on August 4, !:", he relinquished his rights to the land sub=ect o&
the a%ard to private respondent) 1rom such date, the sales application %as considered to be
a matter bet%een the 5ureau o& 2ands and private respondent only) Considering these &acts,
the &ailure to give petitioner a copy o& the notice o& the a%ard cannot be considered as
suppression o& evidence)#:$ 1urthermore, this order %as in &act available to petitioner and
had been re&erred to by him since 'anuary 8, !<3 %hen he &iled his protest %ith the 5ureau
o& 2ands)#:2$
Thir* Issue: $ri.ate Res"o*et 1uali,ie*
&or an A%ard o& Public 2and
Petitioner asserts that private respondent %as legally disquali&ied &rom acquiring the parcels
o& land in question because it %as not authori*ed by its charter to acquire disposable public
agricultural lands under +ections 2, 22 and 28 o& the Public 2and Act, prior to its
amendment by P);) No) <48) Ee disagree) Dhe requirements &or a sales application under the
Public 2and Act are. @A the possession o& the quali&ications required by said Act @under
+ection 2!A and @2A the lac6 o& the disquali&ications mentioned therein @under +ections 2,
22, and 28A) Bo%ever, the trans&er o& o%nership via the t%o agreements dated 'uly < and
;ecember <, !39 and the relinquishment o& rights, being private contracts, %ere binding
only bet%een petitioner and private respondent) Dhe Public 2and Act &inds no relevance
because the disputed land %as covered by said Act only a&ter the issuance o& the order o&
a%ard in &avor o& private respondent) Dhus, the possession o& any disquali&ication by private
respondent under said Act is immaterial to the private contracts bet%een the parties thereto)
@Ee are not, ho%ever, suggesting a departure &rom the rule that la%s are deemed %ritten in
contracts)A Consideration o& said provisions o& the Act %ill &urther sho% their inapplicability to
these contracts) +ection 2 o& the Act pertains to acquisitions o& public land by a corporation
&rom a grantee, but petitioner never became a grantee o& the disputed land) -n the other
hand, private respondent itsel& %as the direct grantee) +ections 22 and 28 disquali&y
corporations, %hich are not authori*ed by their charter, &rom acquiring public land> the
records do not sho% that private respondent %as not so authori*ed under its charter)
Also, the determination by the ;irector o& 2ands and the Minister o& Natural Resources o& the
quali&ication o& private respondent to become an a%ardee or grantee under the Act is
persuasive on Respondent Court) 0n Espinosa vs) Ma6alintal,#:8$ the Court ruled that, by la%,
the po%ers o& the +ecretary o& Agriculture and Natural Resources regarding the disposition o&
public lands 77 including the approval, re=ection, and reinstatement o& applications V are o&
e,ecutive and administrative nature) @+uch po%ers, ho%ever, do not include the =udicial
po%er to decide controversies arising &rom disagreements in civil or contractual relations
bet%een the litigants)A Consequently, the determination o& %hether private respondent is
quali&ied to become an a%ardee o& public land under C)A) 3 by sales application is included
therein)
All told, the only disquali&ication that can be imputed to private respondent is the prohibition
in the !<8 Constitution against the holding o& alienable lands o& the public domain by
corporations)#:3$ Bo%ever, this Court earlier settled the matter, ruling that said constitutional
prohibition had no retroactive e&&ect and could not prevail over a vested right to the land) 0n
Ayog vs) Cusi, 'r),#::$ this Court declared.
8Ee hold that the said constitutional prohibition has no retroactive application to
the sales application o& 5iMan ;evelopment Co), 0nc) because it had already
acquired a vested right to the land applied &or at the time the !<8 Constitution
too6 e&&ect)
Dhat vested right has to be respected) 0t could not be abrogated by the ne%
Constitution) +ection 2, Article J000 o& the !8: Constitution allo%s private
corporations to purchase public agricultural lands not e,ceeding one thousand and
t%enty7&our hectares) PetitionerHs prohibition action is barred by the doctrine o&
vested rights in constitutional la%)
GA right is vested %hen the right to en=oyment has become the property o& some
particular person or persons as a present interest)H @4 C)')+) <8A) 0t is Gthe
privilege to en=oy property legally vested, to en&orce contracts, and en=oy the
rights o& property con&erred by e,isting la%H @2 C)') !::, Note 34, No) 4A or Gsome
right or interest in property %hich has become &i,ed and established and is no
longer open to doubt or controversyH @;o%ns vs) 5lount, <" 1ed) :, 2", cited in
5alboa vs) 1arrales, : Phil) 3!9, :"2A)
Dhe due process clause prohibits the annihilation o& vested rights) GA state may not
impair vested rights by legislative enactment, by the enactment or by the
subsequent repeal o& a municipal ordinance, or by a change in the constitution o&
the +tate, e,cept in a legitimate e,ercise o& the police po%erH @4 C)')+) <<7<9A)
0t has been observed that, generally, the term Gvested rightH e,presses the concept
o& present &i,ed interest, %hich in right reason and natural =ustice should be
protected against arbitrary +tate action, or an innately =ust an imperative right
%hich an enlightened &ree society, sensitive to inherent and irre&ragable individual
rights, cannot deny @4 C)')+) <3, Note <, No) :, citing Pennsylvania
Ireyhound 2ines, 0nc) vs) Rosenthal, !2 Atl) 2nd :9<A)
+ecretary o& 'ustice Abad +antos in his !<8 opinion ruled that %here the
applicant, be&ore the Constitution too6 e&&ect, had &ully complied %ith all his
obligations under the Public 2and Act in order to entitle him to a sales patent,
there %ould seem to be no legal or equitable =usti&ication &or re&using to issue or
release the sales patent @p) 2:3, RolloA)
0n -pinion No) 3", series o& !<3, he held that as soon as the applicant had
&ul&illed the construction or cultivation requirements and has &ully paid the
purchase price, he should be deemed to have acquired by purchase the particular
tract o& land and to him the area limitation in the ne% Constitution %ould not
apply)
0n -pinion No) 9:, series o& !<4, +ecretary Abad +antos held that %here the
cultivation requirements %ere &ul&illed be&ore the ne% Constitution too6 e&&ect but
the &ull payment o& the price %as completed a&ter 'anuary <, !<8, the applicant
%as, nevertheless, entitled to a sales patent @p) 2:4, RolloA)
+uch a contemporaneous construction o& the constitutional prohibition by a high
e,ecutive o&&icial carries great %eight and should be accorded much respect) 0t is a
correct interpretation o& section o& Article J0()
0n the instant case, it is incontestable that prior to the e&&ectivity o& the !<8
Constitution the right o& the corporation to purchase the land in question had
become &i,ed and established and %as no longer open to doubt or controversy)
0ts compliance %ith the requirements o& the Public 2and 2a% &or the issuance o& a
patent had the e&&ect o& segregating the said land &rom the public domain) Dhe
corporationHs right to obtain a patent &or that land is protected by la%) 0t cannot be
deprived o& that right %ithout due process @;irector o& 2ands vs) CA, 28 Phil)
!!A)F
Dhe Minister o& Natural Resources ruled, and %e agree, that private respondent %as similarly
quali&ied to become an a%ardee o& the disputed land because its rights to it vested prior to
the e&&ectivity o& the !<8 Constitution.#:4$
82astly, appellee has acquired a vested right to the sub=ect area and, there&ore, is
deemed not a&&ected by the ne% constitutional provision that no private
corporation may hold alienable land o& the public domain e,cept by lease)
0t may be recalled that the +ecretary o& 'ustice in his -pinion No) 43, series o&
!<8, had declared, to %it.
G-n the other hand, %ith respect to sales application ready &or issuance o& sales patent, it is
my opinion that %here the applicant had, be&ore, the constitution too6 e&&ect, &ully complied
%ith all his obligations under the Public 2and act in order to entitle him to sales patent, there
%ould seem to be not legal or equitable =usti&ication &or re&using to issue or release the sales
patent)H
0mplementing the a&oresaid -pinion No) 43 ,,,, the then +ecretary o& Agriculture
and Natural Resources issued a memorandum, dated 1ebruary 9, !<3, %hich
pertinently reads as &ollo%s.
G0n the implementation o& the &oregoing opinion, sales application o& private individuals
covering areas in e,cess o& 23 hectares and those o& corporations, associations, or
partnership %hich &all under any o& the &ollo%ing categories shall be given due course and
issued patents, to %it.
+ales application &or &ishponds and &or agricultural purposes @+1A, +A and 0IP+AA %herein
prior to 'anuary <, !<8,
a) the land covered thereby %as a%arded>
b) cultivation requirements o& la% %ere complied %ith as sho%n by investigation reports
submitted prior to 'anuary <, !<8>
c) land %as surveyed and survey returns already submitted to the ;irector o& 2ands &or
veri&ication and approval> and
d) purchase price %as &ully paid)G
1rom the records, it is evident that the a&orestated requisites have been complied
%ith by appellee long be&ore 'anuary <, !<8, the e&&ectivity o& the Ne%
Constitution) Do restate, the disputed area %as a%arded to appellee on August <,
!:", the purchase price %as &ully paid on 'uly 24, !:, the cultivation
requirements %ere complied %ith as per investigation report dated ;ecember 8,
!3!, and the land %as surveyed under Pls7!<)F
Dhe same &inding %as earlier made by the ;irector o& 2ands.#:<$
80t is &urther contended by (illa&lor that Nasipit has no =uridical personality to apply
&or the purchase o& public lands &or agricultural purposes) Dhe records clearly sho%,
ho%ever, that since the e,ecution o& the deed o& relinquishment o& August 4,
!:", in &avor o& Nasipit, (illa&lor has al%ays considered and recogni*ed Nasipit as
having the =uridical personality to acquire public lands &or agricultural purposes) 0n
the deed o& relinquishment ,,,, it is stated.
G4) Dhat the Nasipit 2umber Co), 0nc), a corporation duly organi*ed in accordance %ith the
la%s o& the Philippines, , , ,)H
Even this -&&ice had not &ailed to recogni*e the =uridical personality o& Nasipit to
apply &or the purchase o& public lands ,,, %hen it a%arded to it the land so
relinquished by (illa&lor @-rder o& A%ard dated August <, !:"A and accepted its
application there&or) At any rate, the question %hether an applicant is quali&ied to
apply &or the acquisition o& public lands is a matter bet%een the applicant and this
-&&ice to decide and %hich a third party li6e (illa&lor has no personality to question
beyond merely calling the attention o& this -&&ice thereto)F
Needless to say, %e also agree that the November 9, !34 2ease Agreement bet%een
petitioner and private respondent had been terminated by the agreements to sell and the
relinquishment o& rights) 5y the time the verbal leases %ere allegedly made in !: and
!::,#:9$ the disputed land had already been acquired and a%arded to private respondent)
0n any event, petitionerHs cause o& action on these alleged lease agreements prescribed long
be&ore he &iled Civil Case No) 2"<27000, as correctly &ound by the trial and appellate courts)
#:!$ Dhus, it is no longer important, in this case, to pass upon the issue o& %hether or not
amendments to a lease contract can be proven by parol evidence) Dhe same holds true as
regards the issue o& &orum7shopping)
All in all, petitioner has not provided us su&&icient reason to disturb the cogent &indings o& the
;irector o& 2ands, the Minister o& Natural Resources, the trial court and the Court o& Appeals)
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DIS%ISSED)
+- -R;ERE;)
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Romero, and Francisco, JJ., concur.
#elo, J., no part)
#$ Rollo, pp) 4!7<)
#2$ Rollo, pp) <7<3)
#8$ Dhis should be 4" hectares, as stated in the deed o& sale)
#3$ 1older o& E,hibits, pp) 29 78")
#:$ 2ease Agreement, 1older o& E,hibits, pp) 2!78")
#4$ 1older o& E,hibits, p) 82)
#<$ 0bid), p) 3:)
#9$ 1older o& E,hibits, p) 33)
#!$ 0bid)
#"$ 0d), pp) 3!7:)
#$ 0d), p) 89)
#2$ 0d), pp) 2:724)
#8$ Rollo, pp) 9379:)
#3$ 0d), pp) 72)
#:$ RDC 1older o& E,hibits, pp) <<79<)
#4$ ;oc6eted as Civil Case No) 2"<27000)
#<$ Presided by 'udge Miguel +) Rallos)
#9$ RDC rollo, p) <82)
#!$ Dhe D%el&th ;ivision composed o& '') Artemon ;) 2una, ponente> Reynato +) Puno @no%
a member o& this CourtA and 'orge +) 0mperial)
#2"$ Rollo, p) <)
#2$ 5rett vs) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, ! +CRA 49<, 4!9, November 2<, !!", per
Regalado, ')
#22$ 0ndustrial Enterprises, 0nc) vs) Court o& Appeals, 93 +CRA 324, 387382, April 9,
!!", per Melencio7Berrera, ')
#28$ Machete vs) Court o& Appeals, 2:" +CRA <4, 92, November 2", !!:)
#23$ 0bid), p) 92)
#2:$ 23" +CRA :"2, :297:2!, 'anuary 2:, !!:)
#24$ 0bid), p) :82)
#2<$ 0d)
#29$ 1older o& E,hibits, pp) 4974!)
#2!$ 1actual &indings should be distinguished &rom contemporaneous construction and
interpretation o& a la% by the implementing administrative agency %hich is accorded great
respect by courts) 5agatsing vs) Committee on Privati*ation, 234 +CRA 883, 8:3, 'uly 3,
!!:)
#8"$ Philippine Merchant Marine +chool, 0nc) vs) Court o& Appeals, 233 +CRA <<", <9:, 'une
2, !!:> Casa 1ilipina Realty Corporation vs) -&&ice o& the President, 23 +CRA 4:, <3,
1ebruary <, !!:> and C-C-1E; vs) Dra=ano, 23 +CRA 848, 849, 1ebruary :, !!:)
#8$ Rubenecia vs) Civil +ervice Commission, 233 +CRA 43", 4:2, May 8, !!:)
#82$ Proceeding by analogy, the e,ceptions to the rule on conclusiveness o& &actual &indings o&
the Court o& Appeals, enumerated in 1uentes vs) Court o& Appeals, can also be applied to
those o& quasi7=udicial bodies, to %it.
) Ehen the conclusion is a &inding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise or con=ecture>
2) Ehen the in&erence made is mani&estly absurd, mista6en or impossible>
8) Ehen there is grave abuse o& discretion in the appreciation o& &acts>
3) Ehen the =udgment is premised on a misapprehension o& &acts>
:) Ehen the &indings o& &act are con&licting>
4) Ehen the Court o& Appeals in ma6ing its &indings %ent beyond the issues o& the case and
the same is contrary to the admissions o& both appellants and appellees>
<) Ehen the &indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals are at variance %ith those o& the trial
court>
9) Ehen the &indings o& &act are conclusions %ithout citation o& speci&ic evidence on %hich
they are based>
!) Ehen the &acts set &orth in the petition as %ell as in the petitionerHs main and reply brie&s
are not disputed by the respondents>
")Ehen the &indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals are premised on the supposed absence
o& evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record> and
)Ehen certain material &acts and circumstances had been overloo6ed by the trial court
%hich, i& ta6en into account, %ould alter the result o& the case) @1uentes vs) Court o& Appeals,
I)R) No) "!93!, 1ebruary 24, !!<, pp) 479A
#88$ 2an*ona vs) 0ntermediate Appellate Court, 9< +CRA 88, 89, 'uly 2, !!"> Medina vs)
Asistio, 'r), ! +CRA 29, 228, November 9, !!"> ;e los +antos vs) Reyes, 2": +CRA 38<,
33:, 'anuary 2<, !!2> Cniversal Motors vs) Court o& Appeals, 2": +CRA 339, 3::, 'anuary
2<, !!2> 1NC5 1inance vs) Estavillo, !2 +CRA :3, :<, ;ecember 2", !!")
#83$ Rollo, p) )
#8:$ 1older o& E,hibits, pp) <7<2)
#84$ E,hibit !, ibid), pp) 92793)
#8<$ Ee should add that, at present, under +upreme Court Revised Circular 7!:, recourse
&rom rulings o& administrative agencies including those o& e,ecutive departments is to the
Court o& Appeals directly and not to trial courts) Pertinent provisions o& this circular are.
) +cope)YDhese rules shall apply to appeals &rom =udgments or &inal orders o& the Court o&
Da, Appeals and &rom a%ards, =udgments, &inal orders or resolutions o& or authori*ed by any
quasi7=udicial agency in the e,ercise o& its quasi7=udicial &unctions) Among these agencies are
the Civil +ervice Commission, Central 5oard o& Assessment Appeals, +ecurities and E,change
Commission, -&&ice o& the President, Civil Aeronautics 5oard, 5ureau o& Patents, Drademar6s
and Dechnology Drans&er, National Electri&ication Administration, Energy Regulatory 5oard,
National Delecommunication Commission, ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm under Republic Act
44:<, Iovernment +ervice 0nsurance +ystem, Employees Compensation Commission,
Agricultural 0nventions 5oard, 0nsurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission,
5oard o& 0nvestments, and Construction 0ndustry Arbitration Commission)
2) Cases not covered)YDhese rules shall not apply to =udments or &inal orders issued under
the 2abor Code o& the Philippines)
8) Ehere to appeal)YAn appeal under these rules may be ta6en to the Court o& Appeals
%ithin the period and in the manner herein provided, %hether the appeal involves questions
o& &act, or la%, or mi,ed questions o& &act and la%)
,,, ,,, ,,,F
#89$ LARD) 8<) 0n order to =udge the intention o& the contracting parties, their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered)F
#8!$ LARD) 8<8) 0& some stipulation o& any contract should admit o& several meanings, it shall
be understood as bearing that import %hich is most adequate to render it e&&ectual)F
#3"$ Dongoy vs) Court o& Appeals, 28 +CRA !!, 9, 'une 29, !98, per Ma6asiar, ')
#3$ Rivera vs) Court o& Appeals, 233 +CRA 29, 222, May 22, !!:)
#32$ 'acinto vs) Sapara*, 2"! +CRA 234, 2::, May 22, !!2, per ;avide, ')
#38$ 0bid), p) 2:3)
#33$ L+ECD0-N ) 5urden o& proo& in civil cases)77 Each party must prove his o%n a&&irmative
allegations) Evidence need not be given in support o& a negative allegation e,cept %hen such
negative allegation is an essential part o& the statement o& the right or title on %hich the
cause o& action or de&ense is &ounded, nor even in such case %hen the allegation is a denial o&
the e,istence o& a document the custody o& %hich belongs to the opposite party) Dhe burden
o& proo& lies in the party %ho %ould be de&eated i& no evidence %ere given on either side)F
#3:$ 8 C)')+), <"!> Ieralde* vs Court o& Appeals, 28" +CRA 82", 88", 1ebruary 28, !!3)
#34$ 1rancisco, Dhe Revised Rules o& Court in the Philippines. Evidence, (ol) (00, Part 00, !<8
ed), p) 2)
#3<$ 1older o& E,hibits, p) 89)
#39$ 0d), pp) <87<3)
#3!$ 0d), pp) 4!7<)
#:"$ CA rollo, pp) 32227MMM)
#:$ Manila 5ay Club Corporation vs) Court o& Appeals, 23! +CRA 8"8, 8":78"<, -ctober 8,
!!:)
#:2$ People vs) 5arlis, 28 +CRA 324, 38!733", March 23, !!3)
#:8$ <! Phil 83, 8<, August 2!, !3<)
#:3$ +ection , Article J0( o& the !<8 Constitution provides.
L+ection ) Dhe National Assembly, ta6ing into account conservation, ecological, and
developmental requirements o& the natural resources shall determine by la% the si*e o& lands
o& the public domain %hich may be developed, held or acquired by, or leased to, any quali&ied
individual, corporation, or association, and the conditions there&or) No private corporation or
association may hold alienable lands o& the public domain e,cept by lease not to e,ceed one
thousand hectares in area> ,,,)F
#::$ 9 +CRA 3!2, 3!97:"", November !, !92, per Aquino, ')
#:4$ 1older o& E,hibits, pp) 9479<)
#:<$ 0bid), pp) 4974!)
#:9$ Complaint, records, p) 3)
#:!$ ARD) 3:) Dhe &ollo%ing actions must be commenced %ithin si, years &rom the time the
right o& action accrues.
@A Cpon an oral contract>
,,,,)F
Republ#c vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122256,
*ctober )%, 1996 26) SCRA $5(
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&4"56
Private respondent Acil Corporation o%ned several hectares o& 2and 2inoan, Montevista,
;avao del Norte, %hich the government too6 pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm
2a% @R)A) No) 44:<A) Private respondentHs certi&icates o& title %ere cancelled and ne% ones
%ere issued and distributed to &armer7bene&iciaries)
Dhe lands %ere valued by the 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines at P!,82)23 per hectare &or the
riceland and P3,24<)49 per hectare &or brushland, or &or a total o& P38!,":)8!) 0t appears,
ho%ever, that in the +tatement o& Agricultural 2andholdings @/20+DA+ASA/A %hich private
respondent had earlier &iled %ith the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm @;ARA, a lo%er /1air
(alue Acceptable to 2ando%ner/ %as stated and that based on this statement, the 2and 5an6
o& the Philippines valued private respondentHs lands uni&ormly at P:,8)<! per hectare and
&i,ed the amount o& P8!",::<)93 as the total compensation to be paid &or the lands)
Private respondent re=ected the governmentHs o&&er, pointing out that nearby lands planted to
the same crops %ere valued at the higher price o& P23,<<)3" per hectare) Dhe matter %as
brought be&ore the Provincial Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicator @PARA;A %ho, on -ctober 9, !!2,
sustained the initial valuation made by the 25P)
-n ;ecember 2, !!2, private respondent &iled a Petition &or 'ust Compensation in the
Regional Drial Court o& Dagum, ;avao del Norte, sitting as a +pecial Agrarian Court) Private
respondent prayed that ;AR be ordered to pay P23,<<)3" per hectare) Bo%ever, the RDC
dismissed its petition on the ground that private respondent should have appealed to the
;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udication 5oard @;ARA5A, pursuant to the latterHs Revised
Rules o& Procedure, be&ore recourse to it @the RDCA could be had) 0n addition the RDC &ound
that, in violation o& the ;ARA5Hs rules o& procedure the petition had been &iled more than
&i&teen @:A days a&ter notice o& the decision o& the PARA;)
Private respondent moved &or reconsideration but its motion %as denied on -ctober 8,
!!3) Private respondent there&ore &iled a petition &or certiorari %ith the Court o& Appeals,
contending that a petition &or =ust compensation under R)A) No) 44:< ZZ:47:< &alls under the
e,clusive and original =urisdiction o& the RDC) Bis contention %as sustained by the Court o&
Appeals %hich, in its decision#$ o& -ctober 3, !!:, set aside the order o& dismissal o& the
RDC) Accordingly, the case %as remanded to the RDC &or &urther proceedings)
0n turn the government, represented by the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm, &iled this
petition &or revie% on certiorari, raising as the issue %hether in cases involving claims &or =ust
compensation under R)A) No) 44:< an appeal &rom the decision o& the provincial ad=udicator
to the ;ARA5 must &irst be made be&ore a lando%ner can resort to the RDC under Z:<)
Petitioners sustain the a&&irmative proposition) Dhey cite Z:" o& R)A) No) 44:< %hich in
pertinent part provides.
Z:") Luasi'Gudicial .o:ers of the ar. 7 Dhe ;AR is hereby vested %ith primary
=urisdiction to determine and ad=udicate agrarian re&orm matters and shall have
e,clusive original =urisdiction over all matters involving the implementation o&
agrarian re&orm, e,cept those &alling under the e,clusive =urisdiction o& the
;epartment o& Agriculture @;AA and the ;epartment o& Environment and Natural
Resources @;ENRA)))
and argue that the &i,ing o& =ust compensation &or the ta6ing o& lands under R)A) No) 44:< is
a /#matter$ involving the implementation o& agrarian re&orm/ %ithin the contemplation o& this
provision) Dhey invo6e Z4@&A o& R)A) No) 44:<, %hich provides that /any party %ho
disagrees to the decision #o& the ;AR$ may bring the matter to the court o& proper =urisdiction
&or &inal determination o& =ust compensation,/ as con&irming their construction o& Z:")
Dhe contention has no merit)
0t is true that Z:" grants the ;AR primary =urisdiction to determine and ad=udicate /agrarian
re&orm matters/ and e,clusive original =urisdiction over /all matters involving the
implementation o& agrarian re&orm,/ e,cept those &alling under the e,clusive =urisdiction o&
the ;epartment o& Agriculture and the ;epartment o& Environment and Natural Resources) 0t
is also true, ho%ever, that Z:< provides.
Z:<) *pecial Gurisdiction. 7 Dhe +pecial Agrarian Court shall have original and
e,clusive =urisdiction over all petitions &or the determination o& =ust compensation
to lando%ners, and the prosecution o& all criminal o&&enses under this Act) the
Rules o& Court shall apply to all proceedings be&ore the +pecial Agrarian Courts,
unless modi&ied by this Act)
Dhe +pecial Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special
=urisdiction %ithin thirty @8"A days &rom submission o& the case &or decision)
Dhus +pecial Agrarian Courts, %hich are Regional Drial Courts, are given original and e,clusive
=urisdiction over t%o categories o& cases, to %it. @A /all petitions &or the determination o& =ust
compensation to lando%ners/ and @2A /the prosecution o& all criminal o&&enses under #R)A)
No) 44:<$)/#2$ Dhe provisions o& Z:" must be construed in harmony %ith this provision by
considering cases involving the determination o& =ust compensation and criminal cases &or
violations o& R)A) No) 44:< as e,cepted &rom the plenitude o& po%er con&erred on the ;AR)
0ndeed, there is a reason &or this distinction) Dhe ;AR is an administrative agency %hich
cannot be granted =urisdiction over cases o& eminent domain @&or such are ta6ings under R)A)
No) 44:<A and over criminal cases) Dhus, in &.2% v. ula3#8$ and *umulong v.
-uerrero#3$ %e held that the valuation o& property in eminent domain is essentially a =udicial
&unction %hich cannot be vested in administrative agencies, %hile in *cot3Ms epartment
*tore v. #icaller#:$ %e struc6 do%n a la% granting the then Court o& 0ndustrial Relations
=urisdiction to try criminal cases &or violations o& the 0ndustrial Peace Act)
Petitioners also cite Rule 00, Z: and Rule J000, Z o& the ;ARA5 Rules o& Procedure in support
o& their contention that decisions o& agrarian re&orm ad=udicators may only be appealed to the
;ARA5) Dhese rules provide.
Rule 00 Z:) %ppellate Jurisdiction. Dhe 5oard shall have e,clusive appellate
=urisdiction to revie%, reverse, modi&y, alter or a&&irm resolutions, orders,
decisions, and other dispositions o& its #regional and provincial agrarian re&orm
ad=udicators$)
Rule J000, Z) %ppeal to the !oard. 7 aA An appeal may be ta6en &rom an order or
decision o& the Regional or Provincial Ad=udicator to the 5oard by either o& the
parties or both, by giving or stating a %ritten or oral appeal %ithin a period o&
&i&teen @:A days &rom the receipt o& the resolution, order or decision appealed
&rom, and serving a copy thereo& on the opposite or adverse party, i& the appeal is
in %riting)
bA An oral appeal shall be reduced into %riting by the Ad=udicator to be signed by
the appellant, and a copy thereo& shall be served upon the opposite or adverse
party %ithin ten @"A days &rom the ta6ing o& oral appeal)
Apart &rom the &act that only a statute can con&er =urisdiction on courts and administrative
agencies 7 rules o& procedure cannot 7 it is note%orthy that the Ne% Rules o& Procedure o& the
;ARA5, %hich %as adopted on May 8", !!3, no% provide that in the event a lando%ner is
not satis&ied %ith a decision o& an agrarian ad=udicator, the lando%ner can bring the matter
directly to the Regional Drial Court sitting as +pecial Agrarian Court) Dhus Rule J000, Z o&
the ne% rules provides.
Z) (and Jaluation and .reliminar3 etermination and .a3ment of Just
Compensation. Dhe decision o& the Ad=udicator on land valuation and preliminary
determination and payment o& =ust compensation shall not be appealable to the
5oard but shall be brought directly to the Regional Drial Courts designated as
+pecial Agrarian Courts %ithin &i&teen @:A days &rom receipt o& the notice thereo&)
Any party shall be entitled to only one motion &or reconsideration) @Emphasis
suppliedA
Dhis is an ac6no%ledgment by the ;ARA5 that the decision o& =ust compensation cases &or the
ta6ing o& lands under R)A) No) 44:< is a po%er vested in the courts)
Dhus, under the la%, the 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines is charged %ith the initial responsibility
o& determining the value o& lands placed under land re&orm and the compensation to be paid
&or their ta6ing)#4$ Dhrough notice sent to the lando%ner pursuant to Z4@aA o& R)A) No)
44:<, the ;AR ma6es an o&&er) 0n case the lando%ner re=ects the o&&er, a summary
administrative proceeding is held#<$ and a&ter%ard the provincial @PARA;A, the regional
@RARA;A or the central @;ARA5A ad=udicator as the case may be, depending on the value o&
the land, &i,es the price to be paid &or the land) 0& the lando%ner does not agree to the price
&i,ed, he may bring the matter to the RDC acting as +pecial Agrarian Court)#9$ Dhis in
essence is the procedure &or the determination o& compensation cases under R)A) No) 44:<)
0n accordance %ith it, the private respondentHs case %as properly brought by it in the RDC,
and it %as error &or the latter court to have dismissed the case) 0n the terminology o& Z:<,
the RDC, sitting as a +pecial Agrarian Court, has /original and e,clusive =urisdiction over all
petitions &or the determination o& =ust compensation to lando%ners)/#!$ 0t %ould subvert this
/original and e,clusive/ =urisdiction o& the RDC &or the ;AR to vest original =urisdiction in
compensation cases in administrative o&&icials and ma6e the RDC an appellate court &or the
revie% o& administrative decisions)
Consequently, although the ne% rules spea6 o& directly appealing the decision o& ad=udicators
to the RDCs sitting as +pecial Agrarian Courts, it is clear &rom Z:< that
the original and e,clusive =urisdiction to determine such cases is in the RDCs) Any e&&ort to
trans&er such =urisdiction to the ad=udicators and to convert the original =urisdiction o& the
RDCs into appellate =urisdiction %ould be contrary to Z:< and there&ore %ould be void) Ehat
ad=udicators are empo%ered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the
reasonable compensation to be paid to lando%ners, leaving to the courts the ultimate po%er
to decide this question)
WHEREFORE the petition &or revie% on certiorari is DE&IED and the decision o& the Court o&
Appeals is 'FFIR%ED.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado (Chairman), Romero, .uno, and ,orres, Jr., JJ., concur)
#$ Per 'ustice Cesar ;) 1rancisco, and concurred in by 'ustices Eubulo I) (er*ola and
-s%aldo ;) Agcaoli)
#2$ Quismundo v) Court o& Appeals, 2" +CRA 4"! @!!A> (da) de Dangub v) Court o&
Appeals, ! +CRA ::9 @!!"A)
#8$ 3! +CRA 8": @!9<A)
#3$ :3 +CRA 34 @!9<A)
#:$ !! Phil) <42 @!:4A)
#4$ +ec) , E)-) No) 3": @'une 3, !!"A)
#<$ +ec) :@dA, R)A) No) 44:<)
#9$ (in*ons7Magana v) Estrella, 2" +CRA :84 @!!A> Association o& +mall 2ando%ners in
the Philippines, 0nc) v) +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm, <: +CRA 844 @!9!A)
#!$ +ec) :<, R)A) No) 44:<)
a'+ 1a'2 of t"e 0"#l#pp#'es vs. Court of
Appeals G.R. No. 11($12, *ctober 6, 1995 249
SCRA 149
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&&1&&
+EC-N; ;0(0+0-N
# I)R) No) 9<2, -ctober "4, !!: $
2AN; 5ANS -1 DBE PB020PP0NE+, PED0D0-NER, (+) C-CRD -1 APPEA2+, PE;R- 2) KAP,
BE0R+ -1 EM020AN- 1) +AND0AI-, AIR0CC2DCRA2 MANAIEMEND P ;E(E2-PMEND
C-RP), RE+P-N;END+)
#I)R) N-) 9<3:$
;EPARDMEND -1 AIRAR0AN RE1-RM, REPRE+ENDE; 5K DBE +ECREDARK -1
AIRAR0AN RE1-RM, PED0D0-NER, (+) C-CRD -1 APPEA2+, PE;R- 2) KAP, BE0R+ -1
EM020AN- 1) +AND0AI-, AIR0CC2DCRA2 MANAIEMEND P ;E(E2-PMEND C-RP), ED
A2), RE+P-N;END+)
; E C 0 + 0 - N
FR'&CISCO, R., J.:
0t has been declared that the duty o& the court to protect the %ea6 and the underprivileged
should not be carried out to such an e,tent as deny =ustice to the lando%ner %henever truth
and =ustice happen to be on his side)#$ As eloquently stated by 'ustice lsagani Cru*.
/, , , social =ustice 7 or any =ustice &or that matter 7 is &or the deserving, %hether
he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel) 0t is true that, in case
o& reasonable doubt, %e are called upon to tilt the balance in &avor o& the poor, to
%hom the Constitution &ittingly e,tends its sympathy and compassion) 5ut never
is it =usti&ied to pre&er the poor simply because they are poor, or to re=ect the rich
simply because they are rich, &or =ustice must al%ays be served, &or poor and rich
ali6e, according to the mandate o& the la%)/#2$
0n this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the a&orestated principles be applied
in its resolution)
+eparate petitions &or revie% %ere &iled by petitioners ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm @;ARA
@I)R) No) 9<3:A and 2and 5an6 o& the Philippines @I)R) No) 9<2A &ollo%ing the adverse
ruling by the Court o& Appeals in CA7I)R) +P No) 8834:) Bo%ever, upon motion &iled by
private respondents, the petitions %ere ordered consolidated)#8$
Petitioners assail the decision o& the Court o& Appeals promulgated on -ctober 2", !!3,
%hich granted private respondents' Petition &or Certiorari and #andamus and ruled as
&ollo%s.
/EBERE1-RE, premises considered, the Petition &or Certiorari and #andamus is
hereby IRANDE;.
AA ;AR Administrative -rder No) !, +eries o& !!" is declared null and void inso&ar
as it provides &or the opening o& trust accounts in lieu o& deposits in cash or bonds>
5A Respondent 2andban6 is ordered to immediately deposit 7 not merely 'earmar6',
'reserve' or 'deposit in trust' 7 %ith an accessible ban6 designated by respondent
;AR in the names o& the &ollo%ing petitioners the &ollo%ing amounts in cash and in
government &inancial instruments 7 %ithin the parameters o& +ec) 9 @A o& RA
44:<.
P , 3::, 2"<)8 ) ) ) Pedro 2) Kap
P 8:, 392)2 ) ) ) Beirs o& Emiliano +antiago
P:, !3,2<)<< ) ) ) AMA;C-R>
CA Dhe ;AR7designated ban6 is ordered to allo% the petitioners to %ithdra% the
above7deposited amounts %ithout pre=udice to the &inal determination o& =ust
compensation by the proper authorities> and
;A Respondent ;AR is ordered to A immediately conduct summary administrative
proceedings to determine the =ust compensation &or the lands o& the petitioners
giving the petitioners : days &rom notice %ithin %hich to submit evidence and to
2A decide the cases %ithin 8" days a&ter they are submitted &or decision)/#3$
2i6e%ise, petitioners see6 the reversal o& the Resolution dated 'anuary 9, !!:,#:$ denying
their motion &or reconsideration)
Private respondents are lando%ners %hose landholdings %ere acquired by the ;AR and
sub=ected to trans&er schemes to quali&ied bene&iciaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Re&orm 2a% @CAR2, Republic Act No) 44:<A)
Aggrieved by the alleged lapses o& the ;AR and the 2andban6 %ith respect to the valuation
and payment o& compensation &or their land pursuant to the provisions o& RA 44:<, private
respondents &iled %ith this Court a Petition &or Certiorari and #andamus %ith prayer &or
preliminary mandatory in=unction) Private respondents questioned the validity o& ;AR
Administrative -rder No) 4, +eries o& !!2#4$ and ;AR Administrative -rder No) !, +eries o&
!!",#<$ and sought to compel the ;AR to e,pedite the pending summary administrative
proceedings to &inally determine the =ust compensation o& their properties, and the 2andban6
to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively /earmar6ed/, /reserved/ and
/deposited in trust accounts/ &or private respondents, and to allo% them to %ithdra% the
same)
Dhrough a Resolution o& the +econd ;ivision dated 1ebruary !, !!3, this Court re&erred the
petition to respondent Court o& Appeals &or proper determination and disposition)
As &ound by respondent court, the &ollo%ing are undisputed.
/Petitioner Pedro Kap alleges that '@oAn 3 +eptember !!2 the trans&er certi&icates
o& title @DCDsA o& petitioner Kap %ere totally cancelled by the Registrar o& ;eeds o&
2eyte and %ere trans&erred in the names o& &armer bene&iciaries collectively, based
on the request o& the ;AR together %ith a certi&ication o& the 2andban6 that the
sum o& P<8:,88<)<< and P<!,94!):3 have been earmar6ed &or 2ando%ner Pedro
2) Kap &or the parcels o& lands covered by DCD Nos) 4292 and 4298, respectively,
and issued in lieu thereo& DC7:48 and DCO:42, respectively, in the names o& listed
bene&iciaries @ANNEJE+ 'C' P ';'A %ithout notice to petitioner Kap and %ithout
complying %ith the requirement o& +ection 4 @eA o& RA 44:< to deposit the
compensation in cash and 2andban6 bonds in an accessible ban6)' @Rollo, p) 4A)
/Dhe above allegations are not disputed by any o& the respondents)
/Petitioner Beirs o& Emiliano +antiago allege that the heirs o& Emiliano 1) +antiago
are the o%ners o& a parcel o& land located at 2aur, NCE(A EC0'A %ith an area o&
9):4: hectares covered by DCD No) ND74"8:! o& the registry o& ;eeds o& Nueva
Eci=a, registered in the name o& the late Emiliano 1) +antiago> that in November
and ;ecember !!", %ithout notice to the petitioners, the 2andban6 required and
the bene&iciaries e,ecuted Actual tillers ;eed o& Cnderta6ing @ANNEJ '5'A to pay
rentals to the 2and5an6 &or the use o& their &armlots equivalent to at least 2:T o&
the net harvest> that on 23 -ctober !! the ;AR Regional ;irector issued an
order directing the 2andban6 to pay the lando%ner directly or through the
establishment o& a trust &und in the amount o& P8:,392)2> that on 23 1ebruary
!!2, the 2andban6 reserved in trust P8:,392)2 in the name o& Emiliano 1)
+antiago) @ANNEJ [E'> Rollo, p) <A> that the bene&iciaries stopped paying rentals
to the lando%ners a&ter they signed the Actual Diller's ;eed o& Cnderta6ing
committing themselves to pay rentals to the 2and5an6 @Rollo, p) 88A)
/Dhe above allegations are not disputed by the respondents e,cept that
respondent 2andban6 claims A that it %as respondent ;AR, not 2andban6 %hich
required the e,ecution o& Actual Dillers ;eed o& Cnderta6ing @AD;C, &or brevityA>
and 2A that respondent 2andban6, although armed %ith the AD;C, did not collect
any amount as rental &rom the substituting bene&iciaries @Rollo, p) !!A)
/Petitioner Agricultural Management and ;evelopment Corporation @AMA;C-R, &or
brevityA alleges 7 %ith respect to its properties located in +an 1rancisco, Que*on 7
that the properties o& AMA;C-R in +an 1rancisco, Que*on consist o& a parcel o&
land covered by DCD No) 8383 %ith an area o& 2"!)!2: hectares and another
parcel covered by, DCD No) "982 %ith an area o& 48)49! hectares> that a
summary administrative proceeding to determine compensation o& the property
covered by DCD No) 8383 %as conducted by the ;ARA5 in Que*on City %ithout
notice to the lando%ner> that a decision %as rendered on 23 November !!2
@ANNEJ '1'A &i,ing the compensation &or the parcel o& land covered by DCD No)
8383 %ith an area o& 2"!)!2: hectares at P2,<49,824)83 and ordering the
2andban6 to pay or establish a trust account &or said amount in the name o&
AMA;C-R> and that the trust account in the amount o& P2,<49,824)83 &i,ed in the
decision %as established by adding P,!94,39!)<8 to the &irst trust account
established on ! ;ecember !! @ANNEJ 'I'A) Eith respect to petitioner
AMA;C-R's property in Dabaco, Albay, it is alleged that the property o& AMA;C-R
in Dabaco, Albay is covered by DCD No) D72344 o& the Register o& ;eeds o& Albay
%ith an area o& ,42!)3:<9 hectares'> that emancipation patents %ere issued
covering an area o& <")9!!! hectares %hich %ere registered on : 1ebruary !99
but no action %as ta6en therea&ter by the ;AR to &i, the compensation &or said
land> that on 2 April !!8, a trust account in the name o& AMA;C-R %as
established in the amount o& P2,23<,2<)98', three notices o& acquisition having
been previously re=ected by AMA;C-R) @Rollo, pp) 97!A
/Dhe above allegations are not disputed by the respondents e,cept that
respondent 2andban6 claims that petitioner &ailed to participate in the ;ARA5
proceedings @land valuation caseA despite due notice to it @Rollo, p) ""A)/#9$
Private respondents argued that Administrative -rder No) !, +eries o& !!" %as issued
%ithout =urisdiction and %ith grave abuse o& discretion because it permits the opening o& trust
accounts by the 2andban6, in lieu o& depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible ban6
designated by the ;AR, the compensation &or the land be&ore it is ta6en and the titles are
cancelled as provided under +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:<)#!$ Private respondents also assail the
&act that the ;AR and the 2andban6 merely /earmar6ed/, /deposited in trust/ or /reserved/
the compensation in their names as lando%ners despite the clear mandate that be&ore ta6ing
possession o& the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds)#"$
Petitioner ;AR, ho%ever, maintained that Administrative -rder No) ! is a valid e,ercise o& its
rule7ma6ing po%er pursuant to +ection 3! o& RA 44:<)#$ Moreover, the ;AR maintained
that the issuance o& the /Certi&icate o& ;eposit/ by the 2andban6 %as a substantial
compliance %ith +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< and the ruling in the case o& Association of
Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Hon. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. !"#, $%ly &", &'!' (&) S*RA +"+,)#2$
1or its part, petitioner 2andban6 declared that the issuance o& the Certi&icates o& ;eposits %as
in consonance %ith Circular Nos) 2!, 2!7A and :3 o& the 2and Registration Authority %here
the %ords /reserved?deposited/ %ere also used)#8$
-n -ctober 2", !!3, the respondent court rendered the assailed decision in &avor o& private
respondents)#3$ Petitioners &iled a motion &or reconsideration but respondent court denied
the same)#:$
Bence, the instant petitions)
-n March 2", !!:, private respondents &iled a motion to dismiss the petition in I)R) No)
9<3: alleging that the appeal has no merit and is merely intended to delay the &inality o&
the appealed decision)#4$ Dhe Court, ho%ever, denied the motion and instead required the
respondents to &ile their comments)#<$
Petitioners submit that respondent court erred in @A declaring as null and void ;AR
Administrative -rder No) !, +eries o& !!", inso&ar as it provides &or the opening o& trust
accounts in lieu o& deposit in cash or in bonds, and @2A in holding that private respondents are
entitled as a matter o& right to the immediate and provisional release o& the amounts
deposited in trust pending the &inal resolution o& the cases it has &iled &or =ust compensation)
Anent the &irst assignment o& error, petitioners maintain that the %ord /deposit/ as used in
+ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< re&erred merely to the act o& depositing and in no %ay e,cluded the
opening o& a trust account as a &orm o& deposit) Dhus, in opting &or the opening o& a trust
account as the acceptable &orm o& deposit through Administrative Circular No) !, petitioner
;AR did not commit any grave abuse o& discretion since it merely e,ercised its po%er to
promulgate rules and regulations in implementing the declared policies o& RA 44:<)
Dhe contention is untenable) +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< provides as &ollo%s.
/+ec) 4) Procedure &or Acquisition o& Private 2ands 7 , , , , , , , , , ,)
@eA Cpon receipt by the lando%ner o& the corresponding payment or, in case o&
re=ection or no response &rom the lando%ner, upon the deposit :ith an accessible
ban1 designated b3 the %R of the compensation in cash or in (!. bonds in
accordance %ith this Act, the ;AR shall ta6e immediate possession o& the land and
shall request the proper Register o& ;eeds to issue a Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle
@DCDA in the name o& the Republic o& the Philippines) , , , , , , , ,)/ @0talics
suppliedA
0t is very e,plicit there&rom that the deposit must be made only in /cash/ or in /25P bonds/)
No%here does it appear nor can it be in&erred that the deposit can be made in any other
&orm) 0& it %ere the intention to include a /trust account/ among the valid modes o& deposit,
that should have been made e,press, or at least, quali&ying %ords ought to have appeared
&rom %hich it can be &airly deduced that a /trust account/ is allo%ed) 0n sum, there is no
ambiguity in +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< to %arrant an e,panded construction o& the term
/deposit/)
Dhe conclusive e&&ect o& administrative construction is not absolute) Action o& an
administrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the =udicial department i& there is an
error o& la%, a grave abuse o& po%er or lac6 o& =urisdiction or grave abuse o& discretion clearly
con&licting %ith either the letter or the spirit o& a legislative enactment)#9$ 0n this regard, it
must be stressed that the &unction o& promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately
e,ercised only &or the purpose o& carrying the provisions o& the la% into e&&ect) Dhe po%er o&
administrative agencies is thus con&ined to implementing the la% or putting it into e&&ect)
Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot e,tend the la% and amend a
legislative enactment,#!$ &or settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in
harmony %ith the provisions o& the la%) And in case there is a discrepancy bet%een the basic
la% and an implementing rule or regulation, it is the &ormer that prevails)#2"$
0n the present suit, the ;AR clearly overstepped the limits o& its po%er to enact rules and
regulations %hen it issued Administrative Circular No) !) Dhere is no basis in allo%ing the
opening o& a trust account in behal& o& the lando%ner as compensation &or his property
because, as hereto&ore discussed, +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< is very speci&ic that the deposit
must be made only in /cash/ or in /25P bonds/) 0n the same vein, petitioners cannot invo6e
2RA Circular Nos) 2!, 2!7A and :3 because these implementing regulations cannot out%eigh
the clear provision o& the la%) Respondent court there&ore did not commit any error in
stri6ing do%n Administrative Circular No) ! &or being null and void)
Proceeding to the crucial issue o& %hether or not private respondents are entitled to %ithdra%
the amounts deposited in trust in their behal& pending the &inal resolution o& the cases
involving the &inal valuation o& their properties, petitioners assert the negative)
Dhe contention is premised on the alleged distinction bet%een the deposit o& compensation
under +ection 4@eA o& RA 44:< and payment o& &inal compensation as provided under
+ection 9#2$ o& the same la%) According to petitioners, the right o& the lando%ner to
%ithdra% the amount deposited in his behal& pertains only to the &inal valuation as agreed
upon by the lando%ner, the ;AR and the 25P or that ad=udged by the court) 0t has no
re&erence to amount deposited in the trust account pursuant to +ection 4@eA in case o&
re=ection by the lando%ner because the latter amount is only provisional and intended merely
to secure possession o& the property pending &inal valuation) Do &urther bolster the
contention petitioners cite the &ollo%ing pronouncements in the case o& /Association o& +mall
2ando%ners in the Phil) 0nc) vs) +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm/)#22$
/Dhe last ma=or challenge to CARP is that the lando%ner is divested o& his property
even be&ore actual payment to him in &ull o& =ust compensation, in contravention o&
a %ell7accepted principle o& eminent domain)
,,, ,,, ,,,
/Dhe CARP 2a%, &or its part conditions the trans&er o& possession and o%nership o&
the land to the government on receipt by the lando%ner o& the corresponding
payment or the deposit by the ;AR o& the compensation in cash or 25P bonds %ith
an accessible ban6) Cntil then, title also remains %ith the lando%ner) No outright
change o& o%nership is contemplated either)
,,, ,,, ,,,
/Bence the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by arbitrarily
trans&erring title be&ore the land is &ully paid &or must also be re=ected)/
Notably, ho%ever, the a&orecited case %as used by respondent court in discarding petitioners'
assertion as it &ound that.
/, , , , , , despite the 'revolutionary' character o& the e,propriation envisioned
under RA 44:< %hich led the +upreme Court, in the case o& Association o& +mall
2ando%ners in the Phil) 0nc) vs) +ecretary o& Agrarian Re&orm @<: +CRA 838A, to
conclude that 'payments o& the =ust compensation is not al%ays required to be
made &ully in money' 7 even as the +upreme Court admits in the same case 'that
the traditional medium &or the payment o& =ust compensation is money and no
other' 7 the +upreme Court in said case did not abandon the [recogni*ed
rule ) ) ) that title to the propert3 e8propriated shall pass from the o:ner to the
e8propriator onl3 upon full pa3ment of the Gust compensation)/#28$ @0talics
suppliedA
Ee agree %ith the observations o& respondent court) Dhe ruling in the /Association/ case
merely recogni*ed the e,traordinary nature o& the e,propriation to be underta6en under RA
44:< thereby allo%ing a deviation &rom the traditional mode o& payment o& compensation and
recogni*ed payment other than in cash) 0t did not, ho%ever, dispense %ith the settled rule
that there must be &ull payment o& =ust compensation be&ore the title to the e,propriated
property is trans&erred)
Dhe attempt to ma6e a distinction bet%een the deposit o& compensation under +ection 4@eA
o& RA 44:< and determination o& =ust compensation under +ection 9 is unacceptable) Do
%ithhold the right o& the lando%ners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their
behal& as compensation &or their properties simply because they re=ected the ;AR's valuation,
and not%ithstanding that they have already been deprived o& the possession and use o& such
properties, is an oppressive e,ercise o& eminent domain) Dhe irresistible e,propriation o&
private respondents' properties %as pain&ul enough &or them) 5ut petitioner ;AR rubbed it in
all the more by %ithholding that %hich right&ully belongs to private respondents in e,change
&or the ta6ing, under an authority @the /Association/ caseA that is, ho%ever, misplaced) Dhis
is misery t%ice besto%ed on private respondents, %hich the Court must recti&y)
Bence, %e &ind it unnecessary to distinguish bet%een provisional compensation under +ection
4@eA and &inal compensation under +ection 9 &or purposes o& e,ercising the lando%ners'
right to appropriate the same) Dhe immediate e&&ect in both situations is the same, the
lando%ner is deprived o& the use and possession o& his property &or %hich he should be &airly
and immediately compensated) 1ittingly, %e reiterate the cardinal rule that.
/, , , , , , %ithin the conte,t o& the +tate's inherent po%er o& eminent domain,
=ust compensation means not onl3 the correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the o:ner of the land but also the pa3ment of the land :ithin a reasonable
time from its ta1ing. Fithout prompt pa3ment, compensation cannot be
considered ?Gust? for the propert3 o:ner is made to suffer the conseBuence of
being immediatel3 deprived of his land :hile being made to :ait for a decade or
more before actuall3 receiving the amount necessar3 to cope :ith his
loss)/#23$ @0talics suppliedA
Dhe promulgation o& the /Association/ decision endeavored to remove all legal obstacles in
the implementation o& the Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm Program and clear the %ay &or the
true &reedom o& the &armer)#2:$ 5ut despite this, cases involving its implementation continue
to multiply and clog the courts' doc6ets) Nevertheless, %e are still optimistic that the goal o&
totally emancipating the &armers &rom their bondage %ill be attained in due time) 0t must be
stressed, ho%ever, that in the pursuit o& this ob=ective, vigilance over the rights o& the
lando%ners is equally important because social =ustice cannot be invo6ed to trample on the
rights o& property o%ners, %ho under our Constitution and la%s are also entitled to
protection)#24$
WHEREFORE, the &oregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby ;EN0E; &or lac6 o&
merit and the appealed decision is A110RME; in toto)
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, .uno, and #endo)a, JJ., concur)
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on o&&icial leave)
#$ Ielos v) Court o& Appeals, 2"9 +CRA 4"9) 4: @!!2A, quoting 'ustice Alicia +empio7;iy)
#2$ lbid, p) 44)
#8$ Rollo, p) <)
#3$ Rollo, pp) 22728)
#:$ Rollo, p) 3!)
#4$ %hich provides &ormulas &or the valuation o& land e,propriated under RA 44:<)
#<$ %hich provides &or the opening o& trust accounts in the 2and 5an6 instead o& depositing in
an accessible ban6, in cash and bonds, the compensation &or land e,propriated by the ;AR)
#9$ Rollo, pp) "!7)
#!$ +ec) 4) Procedure &or Acquisition o& Private 2ands) 7 1or purposes o& acquisition o&
private lands, the &ollo%ing shall be &ollo%ed.
,,, ,,, ,,,
@eA Cpon receipt by the lando%ner o& the corresponding payment or, in case o&
re=ection or no response &rom the lando%ner, upon the deposit %ith an accessible
ban6 designated by the ;AR o& the compensation in cash or in 25P bonds in
accordance %ith this Act, the ;AR shall ta6e immediate possession o& the land and
shall request the proper Register o& ;eeds to issue a Drans&er Certi&icate o& Ditle
@DCDA in the name o& the Republic o& the Philippines) Dhe ;AR shall therea&ter
proceed %ith the redistribution o& the land to the quali&ied bene&iciaries)
#"$ Rollo, p) )
#$ +ec) 3!) Rules and Regulations) 7 Dhe PARC and the ;AR shall have the po%er to issue
rules and regulations, %hether substantive or procedural, to carry out the ob=ects and
purposes o& this Act)) +aid rules shall ta6e e&&ect ten @"A days a&ter the publication in t%o @2A
national ne%spapers o& general circulation)
#2$ Rollo, pp) 72)
#8$ Rollo, p) 2)
#3$ Rollo, p) "<)
#:$ Rollo, p) 3!)
#4$ Rollo, p) 48)
#<$ Rollo, p) 4<)
#9$ Peralta vs) Civil +ervice Commission 22 +CRA 32:, 382 @!!2A)
#!$ Doledo vs) Civil +ervice Commission 2"2 +CRA :"<, :3 @!!A citing Deo,on v) Members
o& the 5oard o& Administrators, Philippine (eterans Administration, 88 +CRA :9:, :9! @!<"A,
citing +antos vs) Esten*o, "! Phil) 3! @!4"A> Animos vs) Phil) (eterans A&&airs -&&ice, <3
+CRA 23, 2287223 @!9!A)
#2"$ +hell Philippines, 0nc) vs) Central 5an6 o& the Philippines, 42 +CRA 429 @!99A)
#2$ +ection 9) (aluation and Mode o& Compensation) 7 Dhe 25P shall compensate the
lando%ner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the lando%ner and the ;AR and 25P in
accordance %ith the criteria provided &or in +ections 4 and < and other pertinent provisions
hereo&, or as may be &inally determined by the court as the =ust compensation &or the land)
#22$ <: +CRA 838)
#28$ ;ecision, Court o& Appeals, p) 3)
#23$ Municipality o& Ma6ati vs) Court o& Appeals, !" +CRA 2"<, 28 @!!"A citing
Cosculluela vs) Dhe Bon) Court o& Appeals, 43 +CRA 8!8, 3"" @!99A> Provincial
Iovernment o& +orsogon vs) (da) de (illaroya, :8 +CRA 2!, 8"2 @!9<A)
#2:$ <: +CRA 838, 8!2)
#24$ Mata vs) Court o& Appeals, 2"< +CRA <39, <:8 @!!2A)

+ource. +upreme Court E72ibrary
Dhis page %as dynamically generated
by the E72ibrary Content Management +ystem @E72ibCM+A
3o'.so' vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. $$1%4,
November 6, 1992 215 SCRA 42(
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&"5%6
Dhis is a petition &or revie% on certiorari o& the decision#$ o& respondent Court o& Appeals in
CA7I)R) +P No) "2"7CAR dated < ;ecember !94, the dispositive portion o& %hich reads.
/, , , the decision under appeal is hereby a&&irmed e,cept &or this modi&ication.
the addition to the dispositive portion o& sub=ect decision o& paragraph 3 %hich
shall read. G3) directing de&endants to pay to the plainti&& the amount o&
P4,""")"" as his share in the coconut and &ruit harvests in the t%o areas
tenanted by him @E,h) 'C7' and E,h) 'C72HA &or the years !4: to !9, plus legal
interest due thereon up to the time o& payment thereo&)/#2$
Dhe &oregoing a&&irms %ith modi&ication the =udgment#8$ o& the Regional Drial Court o& ;avao
City in CAR Case No) 839:. /) ;eclaring plainti&& as tenant o& the de&endants over the areas
o& the latter's landholding, to %it. @aA #a$n area o& about one @A hectare %here plainti&&'s
house is located @E,h) 'C7'A> @bA #a$n area o& about one @A hectare on the hilly portion
%here bananas %ere planted @E,h) 'C72'A) 2) Dhe sharing relationship bet%een plainti&& and
de&endants shall be maintained in the &ollo%ing manner. on the proceeds o& the coconut,
8"T &or plainti&& and <"T &or de&endants> on all other crops, <"T &or plainti&& and 8"T &or
de&endants) 8) ;eclaring de&endants as legal possessors o& Area74 @E,h) 'C73'A and dismissing
plainti&&'s claim &or the return to his possession o& Area74 @E,h) 'C73HA)F#3$
Dhe antecedents. -n ! +eptember !9, private respondent 2eonardo Arellano &iled a
complaint#:$ %ith the then Court o& Agrarian Relations o& ;avao City &or reinstatement,
delivery o& shares in the produce, and damages) Be alleged that he %as a tenant on a parcel
o& land belonging to petitioners situated in Madapo Bills, ;avao City, %ith an area o& &ive @:A
hectares> that be&ore &iling his complaint he %as compelled to vacate one7hal& @?2A o& the
area, thus depriving him o& his 8"T share &rom the harvests although he %as paid P2")""
&or the improvements thereon> and, that he still occupied the remaining hal& o& sub=ect
property) 2ater, Arellano amended his complaint by see6ing recovery o& the possession o& a
portion consisting o& <,9: square meters, plus his shares in the proceeds o& the harvests
&or si,teen @4A years prayed &or in his original complaint)
0n their ans%er,#4$ petitioners contended that the tenancy relationship %ith Arellano %as
terminated in !4: pursuant to an Amicable +ettlement#<$ and that there %as no pause o&
action against them)
A&ter trial, the lo%er court rendered =udgment as herein7be&ore quoted, %hich respondent
Court o& Appeals a&&irmed %ith modi&ication) Dhus V
/0ndeed, the trial court in denying the claim o& plainti&& &or his share in the
proceeds o& the coconut and other &ruit harvests &rom the land o& de&endants
tenanted by plainti&&, pertaining to the years &rom !4: to !9 in the amount o&
P4,""")"", mainly relied on the absence o& evidence on Gho% much %as harvested
by de&endants &rom !4: to !9 , , , ,H Bo%ever, Ee &ind e,tant in the record
evidence %hich can serve as basis in the computation o& the abovesaid share
claimed by plainti&&) Plainti&& testi&ied as to the minimum o& his share per annum
based on the year he actually received his share, that is, in !92) Plainti&& declared
that in !92 %hen the price o& copra %as P):" to P)4" per 6ilo, the gross income
%hich he reali*ed &rom copra %as about P2,""")""> and that, accordingly, he has
computed that P,""")"" per year %ould be his annual share &rom the coconut
harvest &rom !4: to !9) 1urthermore, appellant cites receipts sho%ing the
gross proceeds o& copra in the year !92) Dhe &oregoing claims o& appellant have
not been controverted by appellee)/#9$
Petitioners no% call &or a revie% o& the decision o& the appellate court, arguing that there is
no evidence to support the claim o& private respondent and that such claim is already barred
by prescription and laches)
-n the other hand, private respondent %ould have the petition dismissed on the ground that
it merely raises &actual issues)#!$
Petitioners insist that their petition &alls %ithin the recogni*ed e,ceptions to the rule that
&indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals may not be revie%ed by Cs on appeal, more
particularly. @A that the &inding o& the Court o& Appeals that there is evidence to support
private respondentHs claim is contrary to that o& the trial court> and, @2A that the &indings o&
the Court o& Appeals are %ithout citation o& speci&ic evidence on %hich they are based)
0t has been o&t7repeated in a long line o& cases#"$ that in petitions &or revie% under Rule 3:
o& the Rules o& Court, only questions o& la% may be raised since the &actual &indings o& the
Court o& Appeals are deemed conclusive on the +upreme Court, sub=ect to certain e,ceptions,
namely. @aA %here there is grave abuse o& discretion> @bA %hen the &inding is grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or con=ectures> @cA %hen the in&erence made is mani&estly
mista6en, absurd or impossible> @dA %hen the =udgment o& the Court o& Appeals is based on
misapprehension o& &acts> @eA %hen the &actual &indings are con&licting> @&A %hen the Court o&
Appeals, in ma6ing its &indings, %ent beyond the issues o& the case and the same are
contrary to the admissions o& both appellant and appellee> @gA %hen the Court o& Appeals
mani&estly overloo6ed certain relevant &acts not disputed by the parties and %hich, i& properly
considered, %ould =usti&y a di&&erent conclusion> and, @hA %here the &indings o& &act o& the
Court o& Appeals are contrary to those o& the trial court, or are mere conclusions %ithout
citation o& speci&ic evidence, or %here the &acts set &orth by the petitioner are not disputed by
the respondent, or %here the &indings o& &act o& the Court o& Appeals are premised on the
absence o& evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record)
Ee agree that the petition at bar &alls under the recogni*ed e,ceptions to the general rule)
1or, considering that the &indings o& respondent Court o& Appeals are contrary to those o& the
trial court, Ee have to ta6e cogni*ance o& this petition in order to determine %hether
respondent appellate court %as =usti&ied in deviating &rom the &indings o& the trial court)
Petitioners assert that there is nothing in evidence to support the conclusion o& the Court o&
Appeals that private respondent is entitled to Lthe amount o& P4,""")"" as his share in the
coconut and &ruit harvests in the t%o areas tenanted by him @E,hs) GC7H and 'C72'A &or the
years !4: to !9, plus legal interests due thereon up to the time o& payment thereo&)/
Dhey claim that there is no basis &or private respondent's computation that P,""")"" per
year %ould be his annual share &rom the coconut harvest &rom !4: to !9 because. @aA
such amount cannot be presumed &rom respondent's testimony that in !92 %hen the price
o& copra %as P):" to P)4" per 6ilo, the gross income he reali*ed &rom copra %as about
P2,""")""> @bA he has not sho%n ho% many 6ilos o& copra %ere produced per year> and, @cA
he &ailed to sho% ho% he arrived at the net proceeds o& P,""")"") Dhey contend that in
order that private respondent may recover his alleged share in the produce o& the land,
it is necessary &or him to prove in a satis&actory manner that he has a right to recover) 0n
other %ords, private respondent must prove his o%n a&&irmative allegations because mere
allegation is not evidence)
Dhere is merit in the appeal)
As mandated by the Rules o& Court, each party must prove his o%n a&&irmative allegation,
#$ i)e), one %ho asserts the a&&irmative o& the issue has the burden o& presenting at the
trial such amount o& evidence required by la% to obtain a &avorable =udgment. by
preponderance o& evidence in civil cases, and by proo& beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
cases)
0n the case at bar, Ee agree %ith petitioners that the claim o& private respondent has not
been established by preponderance o& evidence) E,cept &or his o%n sel&7serving declarations,
there is nothing in the records to support his claim) As correctly observed by petitioners, the
claim o& private respondent is not based on actual &igures sho%ing the number o& coconut
trees &rom %here the copra %as produced, the price o& copra at the time o& sale, the cost o&
labor, ho% many times copra %as produced per year, the e,penses deducted &rom the gross
proceeds, etc) Cnder the circumstances, Ee &ind that there is no su&&icient basis in a%arding
P4,""")"" to private respondent as his share &or the years !4: to !9)
Most importantly, to a%ard the tenant an amount equivalent to one7hal& o& the gross income
&rom the tenanted land devoted to coconut and other &ruit trees is not in consonance %ith
la%) 0n case o& share tenancy,#2$ as in the case at bar, the sharing system on crops other
than rice is provided in +ec) 3, R)A) !!, other%ise 6no%n as the Agricultural Denancy Act,
as amended by R)A) 2248 7
/+EC) 3) !asis ofN*hare in Crops other than Rice) 7 Dhe landholder and the tenant
on lands %hich produce crops other than rice shall be &ree to enter into any
contract stipulating the ratio o& crop division) 0n the absence o& stipulation, the
customs o& the place shall govern. Provided, that %hether the basis o& division o&
the crop is the contract bet%een the parties or the customs o& the place, share o&
the tenant &or his labor in the production shall not be less than thirty per cent o&
the harvest or produce a&ter deducting the e,penses &or harvesting and?or initial
processing> Provided, &urther, that in cases %here the share o& the tenant is,
according to local practices or customs prevailing at the time o& the approval o& the
act, more than the minimum herein set, the tenant's share thus established by
local practices or customs shall prevail and be considered the minimum)F
0t is thus clear that %hether the sharing is in accordance %ith stipulations or customs o& the
place, the la% provides that the tenant's share &or his labor in the production shall not be less
than 8"T o& the harvest, a&ter deducting the e,penses &or harvesting and?or initial
processing) Also to be deducted &rom the gross harvest, as provided in +ec) 29, R)A) !!,
are the seeds, cost o& &ertili*er, pest and disease control and %eeding, and e,penses &or the
operation and maintenance o& the irrigation system)
;ean 'eremias C) Montemayor, in his boo6 /2abor, Agrarian and +ocial 2egislation/,
#8$ points to some sharing arrangements and principles approved by the courts &or crops
other than rice. /8) Coconuts. <"78" in &avor o& the landholder a&ter deducting e,penses &or
harvesting, processing, hauling and premiums @%bdon v. #aloles, CAR Case No) 887Que*on
[:4, August 3, !:4A) 3) Corn) ?8 7 2?8 in &avor o& the tenant i& he o%ns the carabao and
:"7:" i& the landholder provides the %or6 animal @IbaKes v. Cambo3a, CAR Case No) <"7
2eyte [:4, -ctober 2, !:<> %guilar v. Rosaroso, C0R Case No) :4<"7R72eyte, March 3,
!:4A) :) Dobacco. , , , Dhe +upreme Court has upheld a :"7:" sharing arrangement &or this
crop , , , , 4) -nions) :"7:" basis @*errano v. ,orres, CAR Case No) 997NE, [:4, 'anuary
, !:<A)/
Dhus, even assuming that the gross income &rom the land is P2,""")"" per annum, private
respondent's share cannot be pegged at P,""")"" per annum because the la% provides that
&rom the gross harvest the share o& the tenant shall not be less than 8"T a&ter deducting
e,penses &or harvesting and?or initial processing as %ell as e,penses &or the seeds, cost o&
&ertili*ers, pest and disease control and %eeding, and the li6e)
Private respondent ho%ever &ailed to o&&er in evidence the alleged receipts o& the copra
proceeds &rom !4: to !9)#3$ Dhere is there&ore nothing on record on %hich to base the
computation o& the share pertaining to private respondent) 0& at all, private respondent may
be entitled to his share based on %hat the Court may perceive in the e,ercise o& its discretion
as a &air and reasonable estimate o& the gross proceeds minus the e,penses)
Cn&ortunately, private respondent's claim has already prescribed) Cnder +ec) , R)A) !!,
an action &or accounting may be &iled by the tenant %ithin three @8A years &rom the date o&
the threshing o& the crop in question) Ee have ruled in Iusa3 v. %loGado,#:$ that accounting
includes the determination, ad=udication and settlement o& %hat is due the landholder and the
tenant under the la%) Moreover, +ec) 89, RA) 8933, other%ise 6no%n as the Agricultural 2and
Re&orm Code, provides that Lan action to en&orce any cause o& action under this Code shall be
barred i& not commenced %ithin three @8A years a&ter such cause o& action accrued)/
Construing this provision in olorfino v. Court of %ppeals,#4$ Ee ruled that /the la% does
not speci&ically require a =udicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action) +bi le8
non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos)/
0n the case be&ore Cs, there is no sho%ing that private respondent has ever &iled an
administrative complaint to en&orce his right arising &rom alleged deprivation o& his shares o&
the harvests &rom !4:) 0t %as only in !9, or a&ter si,teen @4A years &rom the time his
cause o& action supposedly accrued, that private respondent instituted a =udicial action
against petitioners) Clearly, private respondent is no% barred &rom en&orcing his right o&
action %ith respect to his supposed shares)
WHEREFORE, the petition is -R%N,&) Dhe =udgment o& respondent Court o& Appeals
modi&ying that o& the trial court is *&, %*I&> consequently, the decision o& the Regional Drial
Court o& ;avao City, 5ranch J000, is R&IN*,%,& and %FFIR#&)
SO ORDERED.
Cru), (Chairman), .adilla, and -riKo'%Buino, JJ., concur)
#edialdea, J., on leave)
#$ Penned by 'ustice 2orna +) 2ombos7de la 1uente %ith 'ustices Iloria C) Paras and Celso
2) Magsino concurring)
#2$ CA ;ecision, p) 9> Rollo, p) 3)
#8$ Penned by 'udge Cristeto ;) ;inopol, Regional Drial Court o& ;avao City, 5ranch J000)
#3$ RDC ;ecision, p) 3> Records, p) 2"4)
#:$ Records, pp) 73)
#4$ Rollo, pp) 278)
#<$ E,h) //, 1older o& E,hibits)
#9$ CA ;ecision, pp) <79> Rollo, pp) 2:724)
#!$ Ans%er, Rollo, pp) 3!7:4)
#"$ +aludo v) Court o& Appeals, I)R) No) !::84, 28 March !!2, citing Ramos v) Pepsi Cola
5ottling Co) o& the P)0), No) 2722:88, ! 1ebruary !4<, ! +CRA 29!> Malaysian Airline
+ystem 5ernad v) Court o& Appeals, I) R) No) <9":, ;ecember !9<, :4 +CRA 82>
Abellana v) ;osdos, No) 27!3!9, 24 1ebruary !4:, 8 +CRA 233> Cytiepo v) Aggabao, No)
27294<> 8" +eptember !<, 8: +CRA 94> Carolina 0ndustries, 0nc) v) CM+ +toc6
5ro6erage, 0nc), No) 2734!"9, < May !9", !< +CRA <83> Iarcia v) Court o& Appeals, No) 27
243!", 8" 'une !<", 88 +CRA 422> +acay v) +andiganbayan, I) R) Nos) 443!<7!9,
" 'uly !94, 32 +CRA :!8> Manlapa* v) Court o& Appeals, I) R) No) :4:9!, 'anuary 2,
!9<, 3< +CRA 284)
#$ +ec), Rule 8)
#2$ +ee 2atag v) 5anog No) 272""!9, 'anuary 8, !44, 4 +CRA 99, %ith respect to the
ruling %hen share tenancy e,ists)
#8$ (ol) 000, 2nd) Ed), !49, p)2!)
#3$ Ans%er, p) 8, Rollo, p) :)
#:$ "< Phil) :4, :<)
#4$ I)R) No) 9!:3:, 8 ;ecember !!"> ! +CRA 99")
7epartme't of A.rar#a' Reform A+<u+#cat#o'
1oar+ vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. 11)22%,
21, &a'uary 21, 199$ 266 SCRA 4%6
SourceUR! http566elibrary.4u(iiary.+ov.ph6theboo/shelf6sho7(osfrie$(ly616&42&2
0n this petition &or revie% under Rule 3: o& the Rules o& Court, petitioners ;epartment o&
Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udication 5oard @;ARA5A and 1e Arche7Manalang, Provincial Agrarian
Re&orm Ad=udicator @PARA;A &or the Province o& Ri*al, see6 to set aside, in part, the 28
+eptember !!8 ;ecision #$ o& the Court o& Appeals @&ormer +pecial Dhird ;ivisionA in the
consolidated cases CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 and CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!, and its 2< ;ecember
!!8 Resolution #2$ denying their partial motion &or reconsideration o& the said decision) Dhe
private respondents herein %ere the petitioners belo%)
Dhe Court o& Appeals aptly summari*ed the material &acts leading to the instant petition in
this %ise.
Dhese cases %ere consolidated in vie% o& the &act that they involve the same
petitioners and the same issue concerning the right o& 5+5 Construction and
Agricultural ;evelopment Corp) @herea&ter 5+5 ConstructionA to develop a parcel o&
land into a housing subdivision, against the claim o& private respondents that they
are tenant7&armers entitled to the bene&its o& the Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm
2a% o& !99 @Rep) Act No) 44:<A)
5ac6ground o& CA7I)R) +P N-) 8"3<3
-n March ", !!8 private respondents +alvador -) Abogne, Artemio Catamora
and Raul -rdan &iled a complaint %ith the Provincial Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicator
@PARA;A at Deresa, Ri*al, praying that they be maintained in the peace&ul
possession and cultivation o& a portion, consisting o& 2 hectares, o& the land in
question) Dhe land, %hich has a total area o& 3: hectares, is located at 5arangay
+an 0sidro, Antipolo, Ri*al) 0n their complaint doc6eted as PARA; Case No) 0(7
""<:7!8, private respondents alleged that they are &arm%or6ers and occupant7
tillers o& the land in question> that the land is an #sic$ agricultural land> that they
had invested e&&orts and money in cultivating and planting it %ith various &ruit
trees and root crops> that on March 3, !!8 the portion o& the land they %ere
cultivating had been bulldo*ed at the instance o& 1ederico 5alanon and other
individuals acting in behal& o& the petitioner 5+5 Construction, as a result o& %hich
the improvements made by them on the land %ere destroyed) 1or this reason
private respondents as6ed the PARA; &or an order restraining the herein
petitioners &rom &urther bulldo*ing the property and maintain them in the peace&ul
possession o& the land)
-n the same date @March ", !!8A the complaint %as &iled, the Provincial
Ad=udicator, 1e Arche7Manalang, issued an order en=oining the 5+5 Construction
and all persons representing it Lto cease and desist &rom underta6ing any &urther
bulldo*ing and development activities on the property under litigation or &rom
committing such other acts tending to disturb the status quo)F
-n March 2, !!8 petitioners &iled a complaint %ith the ;epartment o& Agrarian
Re&orm Ad=udication 5oard @;ARA5A at ;iliman, Que*on City, in %hich they sought
the nulli&ication o& the restraining order issued by the PARA;) Dhey alleged that the
land in question is not an agricultural, but residential, land and that the petitioners
be&ore the PARA;, %ho are the herein respondents Abogne, Catamora, and -rdan
are not tenant7&armers but mere squatters> that through Atty) Eduardo 0nlayo, %ho
is chie& legal counsel o& the ;epartment o& Agrarian Re&orm, private respondents
had &iled a criminal case &or illegal conversion o& agricultural land against 1ederico
5alanon, president o& 5+5 Construction> and that Atty) 0nlayo and PARA; 1e
Arche7Manalang, %ho are o&&icials o& the ;AR, had conspired %ith each other and
acted maliciously in issuing the restraining order %ithout regard to its
consequences, %ithout &irst hearing the herein petitioners)
Eithout %aiting &or any action on their complaint be&ore the ;ARA5, the
petitioners, on March !, !!8, &iled the present petition &or certiorari,
substantially alleging the same matters and praying &or the annulment o& the
restraining order issued by the PARA;, on the ground that the order %as issued
capriciously, %himsically, and in e,cess o& the =urisdiction o& the PARA;)
5ac6ground o& CA7I)R) +P N-) 8<!
0n turn, a&ter the &iling o& the petition in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 %ith this Court,
another group, claiming the same right to the cultivation o& the land in question,
&iled a complaint %ith the ;ARA5 against the petitioner 5+5 Construction,
represented by its president, 1ederico 5alanon) Dhe complainants, %ho are the
herein private respondents 2ourdes 5ea, 5en=amin Enrique*, and Natividad
Enrique*, alleged that they too are &arm%or6ers and occupant7tillers o& the same
portion being cultivated by the private respondents in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3) 0n
substantially the same %ay, they alleged that they had invested money and e&&ort
to develop the portion o& the land into a Lcompact agricultural underta6ing,F
planting it %ith various &ruit trees and root crops> that on March 3, !!8 petitioner
5+5 Construction bulldo*ed the portion o& the land cultivated by +alvador Abogne,
Artemio Catamora and Raul -rdan @private respondents in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3A
and %ere determined to bulldo*e the entire land %ith the result that they %ould be
e=ected there&rom) Private respondents as6ed &or a temporary restraining order
because o& %hat they &eared %ould be great and irreparable damage to them and
their source o& livelihood)
-n the same day @May 4, !!8A, the ;ARA5 issued a Lstatus quo orderF, the
dispositive portion o& %hich states.
EBERE1-RE, premises considered, -rder is hereby given to.
) Dhe Respondents 5+5 Construction and Agricultural ;evelopment Corporation represented
by 1ederico 5alanon and any individual or group o& individuals acting pursuant to or under
their command, not to bulldo*e and scrape the &ruit7bearing trees and root crops thereon,
harass and disturb the peace&ul possession o& Petitioners over the landholding in question
pendente lite under pain o& contempt by this 5oard>
2) Dhe ;ARA5 Provincial +heri&& &or the Province o& Ri*al, the Municipal Agrarian, Re&orm
-&&icer &or the Municipality o& Antipolo, Ri*al, the Provincial Agrarian Re&orm -&&icer &or the
Province o& Ri*al and the Philippine National Police unit in the Municipality o& Antipolo, Ri*al to
see to it that Petitioners are not harassed, disturbed and that peace&ul possession o& their
tillage over the landholding in question is maintained pendente lite and to submit #a$
compliance report o& this -rder %ithin &ive @:A days &rom receipt hereo&)
+- -R;ERE;)
Dhe ;ARA5 =usti&ied its order as necessary Lto protect the interests o& both parties
pendente lite, not to preempt the decision o& the Bon) Ad=udicator &or the province
o& Ri*al in Region Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8 and not to ma6e a moc6ery o& our
democratic processes)F
5+5 Construction and Carol 5aucan, %ho is one o& the registered o%ners o& the
land in question, then &iled the petition &or certiorari #under Rule 4:$ in this case
@CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!A, contending that the land is not covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm 2a% and, there&ore, the complaint &iled in the
;ARA5 is not %ithin the latter's =urisdiction)
PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8, sub=ect o& CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3, shall herea&ter be re&erred
to as the A5-INE Case)
Dhe a&orementioned ;ARA5 case sub=ect o& CA7I)R) +P) No) 8<! %as doc6eted as ;ARA5
Case No) """7!8 @Reg) Case No) 0(7R07""<:A and shall herea&ter be re&erred to as the 5EA
Case)
5e&ore the Court o& Appeals, private respondents 5+5 Construction and Agricultural
;evelopment Corporation and Carol 5aucan sought to annul the temporary restraining order
issued by PARA; @herea&ter PARA; DR-A in PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8 and the +tatus
Quo order issued by ;ARA5 @herea&ter ;ARA5 +Q-A in ;ARA5 Case No) """7!8 @Reg) Case
No) 0(7""<:A contending that. @A the land sub=ect o& the proceedings %as not agricultural
land, it having been declared by &ormer Minister Conrado Estrella to be outside the scope o&
P);) No) 2< as &ar bac6 as !98 and converted into a residential area be&ore the e&&ectivity o&
R)A) No) 44:<, #8$ as evidenced by the issuance o& the appropriate ;evelopment Permits by
the Buman +ettlements Regulatory Commission> @2A the private respondents belo% %ere
mere squatters> @8A the complaint in the A5-INE Case &ailed to sho% prima &acie entitlement
to in=unctive relie&> @3A the +ecretary o& 'ustice issued an opinion to the e&&ect that R)A) No)
44:< did not cover land previously classi&ied as residential in to%n plans and *oning
ordinances approved by the Bousing and 2and Cse Regulatory 5oard> and @:A the ;ARA5
+Q-, having been issued a&ter the Court o& Appeals had given due course to their petition in
CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3, Lbetray#ed$ disrespect to the Court and the rule o& la%)F
0n its challenged ;ecision, the respondent Court disposed as &ollo%s.
EBERE1-RE, the petition &or certiorari and motion &or contempt in CA7I)R) +P No)
8"3<3 are ;0+M0++E;)
-n the other hand, the petition &or certiorari in CA7I)R) +P No) 8<! is IRANDE;
and the order dated May 4, !!8 and all proceedings in ;ARA5 Case No) """7!8
@Reg) Case No) 0(7R07""<:A, including the order o& arrest o& 'uly :, !!8, are
hereby declared NC22 AN; (-0;)
Dhe Provincial Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicator is -R;ERE; to resolve %ithin ten @"A
days &rom notice the application &or a %rit o& preliminary in=unction in PARA; Case
No) 0(7R07""<:7!8) Pending resolution by the PARA; o& the motion &or in=unction,
the petitioners are EN'-0NE; &rom bulldo*ing or in any %ay disturbing the private
respondents in their possession)
As to the A5-INE Case @CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3A, it upheld the validity o& the PARA; DR-,
ruling that the allegations in the complaint in PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8 clearly
indicated the necessity &or its issuance> the respondentsH contentions %ere matters o&
de&ense> and that, in any event, the issue o& the propriety o& the issuance o& the DR- %as
already mooted by the e,piration o& its 2"7day li&etime) -n other hand, it granted the petition
in the 5EA Case @CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!A and, consequently, set aside the ;ARA5 +Q- and
the %arrant o& arrest issued in the 5EA Case as the ;ARA5 had no =urisdiction over said the
case and violated its Rules o& Procedure) 0t =usti&ied the said disposition in this %ise.
-n the other hand, the L+tatus Quo -rderF issued by the ;ARA5 on May 4, !!8
is, in our vie%, nothing but an inter&erence in a matter over %hich it has no
=urisdiction) 0t is true that under the la% the ;AR is given Lprimary =urisdiction to
determine and ad=udicate agrarian re&orm matters and ))) e,clusive original
=urisdiction over matters involving the implementation o& agrarian re&ormF and to
punish those guilty o& contempt) @Rep) Act No) 44:<, sec) :"A Cnder the Revised
Rules o& Procedure o& the ;AR, ho%ever, this po%er is delegated to Regional
Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicators @RARA;sA and to Provincial Agrarian Re&orm
Ad=udicators @PARA;sA %ith respect to matters arising %ithin their respective
territorial =urisdiction)
As already stated, the ;ARA5 issued the L+tatus Quo -rderF because o& %hat it
perceived to be an e&&ort o& the herein petitioners 5+5 Construction and its o&&icers
Lto ma6e a moc6ery o& a #sic$ democratic processes)F Apparently, the ;ARA5 %as
re&erring to the complaint &iled %ith it by petitioners and the petition &or certiorari
later &iled %ith this Court in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3) Dhat is the reason petitioners
charge the ;ARA5 %ith LdisrespectF o& this Court)
Bo%ever, the ;ARA5 should have le&t the correction o& alleged abuse o& legal
process to this Court instead o& issuing the order in question) 0n issuing the L+tatus
Quo -rderF o& May 4, !!8, the ;ARA5 only succeeded in ))) acting on a matter
over %hich it had no =urisdiction since the case %as already pending be&ore its
PARA;) Certainly the interest o& orderly procedure can not tolerate both the
;ARA5 and the PARA; to act simultaneously or in tandem over the same case)
Dhat the complainants ))) are di&&erent &rom the complainants be&ore the PARA;
cannot conceal the &act that the purpose o& the complaint in the ;ARA5 %as the
same as the purpose o& the complaint in the PARA;, namely, &or maintenance o&
peace&ul possession) 0ndeed, in their complaint, 2ourdes 5ea, 5en=amin Enrique*
and Natividad plead the cause o& the complainants in the PARA; ))) Dhey do not
assert a cause o& action o& their o%n, e,cept a generali*ed interest in stopping the
development o& the land into a housing subdivision)
Dhe ;ARA5 should have set the e,ample o#&$ observance o& orderly procedure
instead o& issuing the order in question) As our disposition o& the issue in CA7I)R)
+P No) 8"3<3 sho%s, the validity o& the PARA; order is &or this Court to resolve,
not &or the ;ARA5)
Dhe ;ARA5 see6s to =usti&y its order on the ground that unless the petitioners
%ere restrained, they %ould have proceeded %ith the bulldo*ing o& the land and
the destruction o& private respondentsH crops) 0& that is so, it can only be because
the 2"7day li&e o& the PARA; DR- e,pired %ithout the latter having resolved the
respondents' application &or in=unction) Dhe &iling o& the petition in CA7I)R) +P No)
8"3<3 cannot be cited to =usti&y the PARA;'s &ailure to resolve the in=unctive
incident) Dhis Court, duly mind&ul o& Republic Act No) 44:<, sec) :: has studiously
avoided issuing a restraining order against the PARA; and the ;ARA5) Dhere is
simply no =usti&ication &or the ;ARA5 order o& May 4, !!8) Dhe least the PARA;
could have done %as to get the parties to agree to a temporary truce pending
resolution o& the motion &or a %rit o& preliminary in=unction)
Iiven the nullity o& the ;ARA5 order o& May 4, !!8 it &ollo%s that the ;ARA5 %as
%ithout po%er to order the arrest o& the petitioner &or violation o& such order) -n
the other hand, %e do not thin6 that the ;ARA5 committed any contempt o& this
Court in issuing its order since as already indicated this Court did not really issue
any restraining order against the PARA;)
-n 2 -ctober !!8, the petitioners herein, as the private respondents belo%, &iled a Partial
Motion &or Reconsideration o& the ;ecision,#3$ contending in the main that the "7day period
mandated by the Court o& Appeals %ithin %hich to resolve the application &or preliminary
in=unction in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 %as too short, impractical and amounted to inter&erence
%ith quasi7=udicial procedures governed by a separate and distinct set o& rules> and that the
;ARA5 had =urisdiction to issue the +Q-, as its delegation o& quasi7=udicial po%er to the
PARA; did not contemplate total abdication thereo&, thus the PARA;Hs authority over a case
could be modi&ied or %ithdra%n at any given time) As to the latter, the petitioners &urther
argued that only the ;ARA5 %as directly con&erred by la% %ith quasi7=udicial po%er, hence
primary =urisdiction remained %ith it and no legal impediment prevented the ;ARA5 &rom
issuing interlocutory orders even in cases pending be&ore the PARA;> the petitioners &inally
invo6ed the doctrines o& e,haustion o& administrative remedies and primary =urisdiction in
claiming that =udicial intervention in the proceedings %as premature, as the ;ARA5 should
have been allo%ed to &irst pass upon the propriety o& the 4 May !!8 -rder)
0n its resolution #:$ o& 2< ;ecember !!8, the Court o& Appeals denied the Partial Motion &or
Reconsideration, holding that because the "7day period &i,ed in the decision %as derived
&rom the courtHs supervisory po%er to issue the %rit o& certiorari> moreover, it %as imposed.
#0$n vie% o& the restraining order issued en=oining petitioners #private respondents
herein$ &rom ))) disturbing the private respondents #belo%$ in their possession) 0t
%ould be un&air to hold the petitioners #private respondents herein$ to an inde&inite
period o& restraint %ithout a corresponding limitation on the period %ithin %hich
the PARA; should act on the application &or preliminary in=unction) #4$
As to the challenge to its ;ecision in CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!, the Court o& Appeals ruled that
the petitioners cited no authority &or their stand and reiterated that to uphold the petitionersH
arguments could only result in the subversion o& orderly administration o& =ustice)
Dhe petitioners then &iled the instant petition %herein they assert that the Court o& Appeals
committed grave abuse o& discretion amounting to lac6 or e,cess o& =urisdiction in. @aA
directing in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 that the pending incident @application &or Erit o&
Preliminary 0n=unctionA in the A5-INE Case @PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8A be resolved
%ithin a speci&ic period o& ten days &rom notice> and @bA declaring in CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!
that all the proceedings in the 5EA Case @;ARA5 Case No) """7!8 #Reg) Case No) 0(7R07
""<:$A, including the : 'uly !!8 arrest order, %ere null and void)
As to the &irst, the petitioners argue that. @A in a special civil action &or certiorari, %hen a
supervisory act is too speci&ic @i)e), the "7day periodA that noncompliance there%ith is proper
&or contempt proceedings, the said directive is relieved o& the character o& an incident o&
supervision and becomes a separate remedy in itsel&> @2A the restraining order issued by the
Court o& Appeals against the private respondents %as not necessary as the +Q- subsisted
pending &inality o& the ordered nulli&ication o& the 5EA Case> @8A the directive %as premature
and constituted undue inter&erence %ith quasi7=udicial proceedings governed by a distinct set
o& rules, especially in light o& the doctrine o& primary =urisdiction> @3A any delay in the
resolution o& the motion &or preliminary in=unction %as attributable to the &iling by the private
respondents o& CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3> and @:A since no %rit %as issued in the A5-INE Case,
no occasion arose &or the Court o& Appeals to e,ercise its supervisory po%er)
Eith respect to CA7I)R) +P No) 8<!, the petitioners rehashed their arguments concerning
the ;ARA5Hs delegation o& quasi7=udicial po%ers to its PARA;s or RARA;s @Regional Agrarian
Re&orm Ad=udicatorsA, then admitted that the t%o sets o& complainants see6ing to en=oin the
private respondents %ere similarly situated) As such, the cases %ere proper &or consolidation
and the ;ARA5 +Q- ensured that PARA; ManalangHs authority %ould not be pre7empted by
merely re&erring to the case pending be&ore the latter) Bence, the Court o& AppealsH premise
that the ;ARA5Hs issuance o& the +Q- inter&ered %ith the PARA; case %as not accurate as, in
e&&ect, the said -rder %as issued in a case &iled directly and pending %ith the ;ARA5)
0n their Comment, the private respondents maintain that the Court o& Appeals committed no
reversible error in its challenged decision)
Ee resolved to give due course to the petition a&ter the &iling o& the petitionersH Reply to the
Comment o& the private respondents, and the latterHs Re=oinder thereto)
I
Re: C'2G.R. S$ &o. 34565
Dhe petitionersH &irst grievance is un&ounded) Plainly, the Court o& Appeals has certiorari
=urisdiction over the PARA; DR-)#<$ +uch =urisdiction having been invo6ed %ith the parties
given su&&icient opportunity to argue &or or against its propriety, the Court o& Appeals could,
as it did, direct the PARA; to resolve the application &or a %rit o& preliminary in=unction %ithin
a speci&ied period) Dhe Court o& Appeals must have ta6en into account the &act that the DR-
had already e,pired, and as sho%n by the pleadings o& the parties, there %as an urgent need
to resolve the issue) Dhe petitioners ought to remember that under the ;ARA5 Revised Rules
o& Procedure @herea&ter ;ARA5 Revised RulesA, it is during the li&etime o& the DR- that the
parties may be required to present evidence to substantiate their respective positions on the
incident and on the main issue or issues o& the case) #9$ As a matter o& &act, in the PARA;
DR- o& " March !!8, PARA; Manalang already set the hearing on the application &or a %rit
Lon March 8 !!8 at ."" p)m)F #!$ 0ndisputably, the "7day period &i,ed by the Court o&
Appeals, counted &rom PARA; ManalangHs receipt o& a copy o& the decision, can by no means
be considered arbitrary or hasty)
Dhe petitioners equally &ailed to reali*e that the Court o& Appeals impliedly, yet e&&ectively,
e,tended the lapsed DR- by en=oining the petitioners in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 and CA7I)R)
+P No) 8<! @the respondents in the A5-INE Case and the 5EA CaseA &rom bulldo*ing or in
any %ay disturbing the complainants in the said cases in their possession) #"$ As the
petitioners did not question the propriety o& the latter, they cannot no% be allo%ed to be
duplicitous)
Ee li6e%ise %ish to state that there %as another, more persuasive reason %hy CA7I)R) +P
No) 8"3<3 should be dismissed, vi*), the prematurity o& the petition, %hich amounted to a
lac6 o& cause o& action)
Ee note that the petition in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3 %as &iled on ! March !!8, #$ shortly
a&ter the private respondentsH LcomplaintF #2$ to nulli&y the PARA;Hs DR- %as &iled %ith the
;ARA5 on 2 March !!8) 0t is precisely &or this reason that the petitioners herein, as the
respondents in CA7I)R) +P No) 8"3<3, asserted in their ans%er that e,haustion o&
administrative remedies %as not had belo%, hence the petition Llac6s a cause o& action &or
being evidently premature)F #8$ Dhe Lcomplaint,F ho%ever disguised, %as in reality nothing
but an appeal to the ;ARA5 &rom the PARA; order granting the DR- on the ground o& grave
abuse o& discretion) Dhis %as, there&ore, a matter covered by ZZ and 2, Rule J000 o& the
;ARA5 Revised Rules) Among those matters %hich may be appealed is an Lorder or decision
o& the Regional or Provincial Ad=udicator,F on the ground o& Lgrave abuse o& discretion on the
part o& the Regional or Provincial Ad=udicator)F Dhis appeal is, undoubtedly, an administrative
remedy, %hich has not been sho%n to be inadequate) Not having yet &ully e,hausted the
administrative remedies %hich they had already invo6ed, the private respondents cannot be
permitted to abandon the same at their chosen time and leisure and invo6e the =urisdiction o&
the regular courts)#3$ 1ailure to e,haust administrative remedies is &atal to a partyHs cause
o& action and a dismissal based on that ground is tantamount to a dismissal based on lac6 o&
cause o& action)#:$
II
Re: C'2G.R. S$ &o. 37768
2i6e%ise, the Court o& Appeals correctly set aside the ;ARA5 +Q- o& 4 May !!8 and
annulled all proceedings in ;ARA5 Case No) """7!8 @Reg) Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8A) Cnder
the ;ARA5 Revised Rules, the ;ARA5 %as %ithout authority to initially ta6e cogni*ance o& the
case)
0n insisting that the ;ARA5 had =urisdiction over the 5EA Case @;ARA5 Case No) """7!8
#Reg) Case No) 0(7R07""<:$A, the petitioners posit that the ;AR?;ARA5 %as vested by Z:" o&
R)A) No) 44:< %ith primary =urisdiction to determine and ad=udicate agrarian re&orm matters,
and e,clusive original =urisdiction over all matters involving the implementation o& agrarian
re&orm, sub=ect to the e,ceptions therein provided) 1urther, the ;AR?;ARA5 never abdicated,
but merely delegated that authority to the RARA;s and the PARA;s under the ;ARA5
Revised Rules> thus, the &act that a similar case %as already pending %ith any o& the PARA;s
@as it relates to provincial coverageA or RARA;s @as to administrative regions o& the ;ARA did
not, by itsel&, automatically divest the ;ARA5 o& its =urisdictional competence) Dhe petitioners
&inally argue that since Lthe &unction?authority?=urisdiction o& the PARA;s?RARA;s, is only
;E2EIADE; ))) ;AR?;ARA5, cannot ))) be said to have totally unloaded the
po%er?responsibility con&erred by statute, to the delegate)F As to the ;ARA5 +Q-, the
petitioners claim that it %as issued under the ;ARA5Hs original =urisdiction or in aid o& its
appellate =urisdiction)
Ee &ind the petitionersH theses e,tremely di&&icult to divine and their arguments a bit
convoluted) Dhere is an obvious e&&ort to either &ashion out a bi*arre interpretation o& or to
suspend the ;ARA5 Revised Rules to =usti&y the ;ARA5Hs assumption o& =urisdiction over the
5EA Case @;ARA5 Case No) "!!7!8 #Reg) Case No) 0(7R07"""7!8$A)
0t must be stressed that under Z:" o& R)A) No) 44:<, it is the ;AR %hich is vested %ith
primary =urisdiction to determine and ad=udicate agrarian re&orm matters, and e,clusive
original =urisdiction over all matters involving the implementation o& agrarian re&orm, e,cept
those &alling under the e,clusive original =urisdiction o& the ;epartment o& Agriculture and the
;epartment o& Environment and Natural Resources) 1urther e,ceptions to the ;ARHs e,clusive
original =urisdiction are provided &or in ZZ:4 and :< o& the Act %hich vest in the trial courts
@designated by the +upreme Court as +pecial Agrarian CourtsA original and e,clusive
=urisdiction over all petitions &or the determination o& =ust compensation to lando%ners and
the prosecution o& all criminal o&&enses under the Act)
0n order Lto achieve a =ust, e,peditious and ine,pensive determination o& every action or
proceeding be&ore it,F the ;AR is mandated Lto adopt a uni&orm rule o&
procedure,F #4$ %hich is, at present, the ;ARA5 Revised Rules) Dhereunder, the ;ARHs
e,clusive original =urisdiction is e,ercised through hierarchially arranged agencies, namely,
the ;ARA5, RARA; and PARA;) Dhe latter t%o e,ercise Ldelegated authority,F %hile the &irst
e,ercises appellate =urisdiction over resolutions, orders, decisions and other dispositions o&
the RARA; and the PARA;, and L&unctional supervisionF over the RARA; and the PARA;) ZZ
to :, Rule 00 @'urisdiction o& the Ad=udication 5oardA o& the ;ARA5 Revised Rules speci&ically
provide as &ollo%s.
+ECD0-N ) .rimar3, original and appellate Gurisdiction. 77 Dhe Agrarian Re&orm
Ad=udication 5oard shall have primary =urisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and ad=udicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters
or incidents involving the implementation o& the Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm
Program under Republic Act No) 44:<, E,ecutive order Nos) 22!, 229 and 2!7A,
Republic Act No) 8933 as amended by Republic Act No) 489!, Presidential ;ecree
No) 2< and other agrarian la%s and their implementing rules and regulations)
, , ,
+ection 2) elegated Jurisdiction. 77 Dhe Regional Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicators
@RARA;A and the Provincial Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicators @PARA;A are empo%ered
to receive, hear, determine and ad=udicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and
incidents in connection there%ith, arising %ithin their respective territorial
=urisdiction)
+ection 8) Functional Relationship. 77 Dhe 5oard shall e,ercise &unctional
supervision over the RARA;s> and the PARA;s) 1or administrative purposes,
ho%ever, the RARA;s and the PARA;s are deemed to &orm part o& the ;AR
Regional -&&ice %here they are stationed, and as such, shall be given
administrative support by their respective Regional and Provincial o&&ices, in terms
o& o&&ice space, personnel services, equipment and supply, and other &acilities)
+ection 3) Role of the R%R%. 77 Dhe RARA; shall be the E,ecutive Ad=udicator in
his region directly responsible to the 5oard) As such, he shall coordinate and
monitor the %or6 o& the PARA;s in his region and see to it that their doc6ets do
not remain clogged) Be shall receive, hear, and ad=udicate the &ollo%ing cases.
@aA cases that cannot be handled by the PARA; on account o& inhibition or disquali&ication>
@bA cases brought directly be&ore him %hich &or some cogent reason, cannot be properly
handled by the PARA; concerned>
@cA cases o& such comple,ity and sensitivity that the decision thereo& %ould constitute an
important precedent a&&ecting regional or national interests> and
@dA such other cases %hich the 5oard may assign to him)
+ection :) Appellate 'urisdiction) 77 Dhe 5oard shall have e,clusive appellate =urisdiction to
revie%, reverse, modi&y, alter or a&&irm resolutions, orders, decisions, and other dispositions
o& its RARA; and PARA;)
Ehile ZZ, 2 and 8, Rule 0( @Commencement o& Actions, (enue and Cause o& ActionA o& the
;ARA5 Revised Rules read as &ollo%s.
+ection ) Complaint or .etition. 77 An action be&ore the Ad=udication 5oard or its
Ad=udicators, shall be initiated by &iling a complaint or petition %ith the Provincial
Agrarian Re&orm Ad=udicator @PARA;A o& the Province %here the land is located) )))
+ection 2) Jenue. 77 @aA All actions shall be brought be&ore the PARA; o& the
province %here the land or other property involved is located) )))
+ection 8) -ne suit &or a single cause o& action) 77 Multiple suits based on a single
cause o& action &or the en&orcement or protection o& a right or prevention or
redress o& a %rong shall not be allo%ed) 0& a single cause o& action is split and t%o
@2A or more complaints or petitions are instituted &or di&&erent parts thereo&, the
&iling o& the &irst complaint or petition may be pleaded as a ground &or dismissal o&
the others, and a =udgment on the merits in any one o& them may be availed o& as
a bar to the others)
Do avoid multiplicity o& suits, Z8, Rule (000 o& the ;ARA5 Revised Rules provides.
+ection 8) Dotality o& Case Assigned) 77 Ehen a case is assigned to a RARA; or PARA;, any or
all incidents thereto shall be considered assigned to him, and the same shall be disposed o& in
the same proceedings to avoid multiplicity o& suits or proceedings)
0t indisputably &ollo%s that all actions pursued under the e,clusive original =urisdiction o& the
;AR, in accordance %ith Z:" o& R)A) No) 44:<, must be commenced in the PARA; o& the
province %here the property is located and that the ;ARA5 only has appellate =urisdiction to
revie% the PARA;Hs orders, decisions and other dispositions)
Consequently, the ;ARA5 %as not possessed o& =urisdiction to ta6e cogni*ance, in the &irst
instance, o& the 5EA Case @;ARA5 Case No) """7!8 #Reg) Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8$A) 0n
&act, it %as &ully a%are o& the A5-INE Case @PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8A, &or %hich
reason it indicated in parenthesis the latterHs doc6et number a&ter the original doc6et number
o& the case originally assigned to the 5EA Case) Dhe ;ARA5 should have &orth%ith indorsed or
re&erred the case to the PARA; o& Ri*al, %hich %ould then either treat it as a separate
complaint to be consolidated %ith PARA; Case No) 0(7R07""<:7!8, or consider it a complaint
in intervention in the latter) Dhe a&orementioned Z8, Rule (000 o& the ;ARA5 Revised Rules
dictated such a course o& action on the part o& the ;ARA5)
Neither may the ;ARA5 no% claim that it issued the +Q- in aid o& its appellate =urisdiction,
since it recogni*ed, as an original complaint, the 5EA Case)
Needless to state, the ;ARA5 %as %ithout authority to issue the +Q-, much less the %arrant
o& arrest) 0ts action %as a clear violation o& its ;ARA5 Revised Rules) Any suggestion that it
has un&ettered discretion to suspend its o%n rules is unacceptable) 1or one, ;ARA5 Lshould
have set the e,ample or observance o& orderly procedure,F as stated by the Court o& Appeals>
&or another, it %ould render its o%n Revised Rules o& Procedure uncertain and %hose
permanence %ould be dependent upon the instability o& the %hims and caprices o& the
;ARA5)
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DE&IED) Dhe challenged ;ecision o& 28
+eptember !!8 and Resolution o& 2< ;ecember !!8 o& the Court o& Appeals @&ormer
+pecial Dhird ;ivisionA in the consolidated cases CA7I)R) +P Nos) 8"3<3 and 8<<!, are
hereby 'FFIR%ED.
No pronouncements as to costs)
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), #elo, Francisco, and .anganiban, JJ., concur)
#$ -riginal Record @-RA, CA7I)R) +P Nos) 8"3<3 and 8<<!, 8!73!> Rollo, 2<78<) Per
Mendo*a, ') @no% Associate 'ustice o& the +upreme CourtA, %ith 2agamon and Pardo, ''),
concurring)
#2$ 0d), <37<4> 0d), 8973")
#8$ Entitled LAn Act 0nstituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Re&orm Program to Promote +ocial
'ustice and 0ndustriali*ation, Providing the Mechanism &or its 0mplementation, and &or -ther
Purposes)F
#3$ -R, :"74:)
#:$ +upra note 2)
#4$ -R, <:> Rollo, 8!)
#<$ Z, Rule J0(, ;ARA5 Revised Rules o& Procedure> Z:3, R)A) No) 44:<)
#9$ Z8, Rule J, ;ARA5 Revised Rules o& Procedure)
#!$ -R, 9)
#"$ Rollo, 8<)
#$ -R, 7)
#2$ 0d), 4< et seq) Dhis complaint is Anne, LF o& the Ans%er therein)
#8$ 0d), 48, citing PestaMas v) ;yogi, 9 +CRA :<3 #!<9$> Aboiti* and Co), 0nc) v) Collector
o& Customs, 98 +CRA 24: #!<9$)
#3$ +ee Deotico v) Agda, !< +CRA 4<: #!!$)
#:$ +ee 5aguioro v) 5asa, 23 +CRA 38< #!!2$)
#4$ +econd paragraph, Z:", R)A) No) 44:<)