BONIFACIO vs DIZON

FACTS:
Petitioner Olimpio Bonifacio filed a complaint before the Court of Agrarian Relations
( CAR) of Baliwag, Bulacan seeking the ejectment of private respondent Pastora San Miguel
from Bonifacios two-hectare agricultural land at Patubug, Marilao, Bulacan on the ground of
personal cultivation.
Judge Manuel Serapio granted the ejectment of Pastora San Miguel and ordered the latter
to vacate the landholding and deliver the possession to Bonifacio.
Pastora San Miguel appealed to the Court of Appeals and the latter affirmed the CARs
ruling with modification of payment of Bonifacio to Pastora San Miguel
Pastora appealed to the Supreme Court but during the pendency of the case Bonifacio
died and no notice of death was given to the Supreme Court and there is also no notice of
substitution of his heirs was made.
The Supreme Court En Banc affirmed the decision of Court of Appeals granting Pastoras
ejectment.
Subsequently, petitioners Rosalina Bonifacio as surviving wife, and Gabriel, Ponciano,
Tiburcio, Beatriz, Generosa, Silveria, Leonardo, Felomena, Encarnacion and Leonila Bonifacio,
children and heirs of Olimpio Bonifacio moved for the execution of CARs decision before the
RTC of Bulacan.
A writ of execution was issued and the Sheriff delivered the land to Rosalina except that
part which was occupied by Pastora. Pastora sought for the quashal of the writ of execution.
Petitioners sought for the issuance of writ of demolition and Pastora be declared in
contempt for re-entering the subject land.
The RTC Bulacan through Judge Natividad Dizon issued a resolution denying the motion
for demolition and petition for contempt filed by petitioners

Now, petitioners Bonifacio filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
alleging abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Dizon in ruling that the case can no longer be
execute because the action is purely personal in character. They assert that being an ejectment
case and not one specifically provided by law to be purely personal, the case survives the death
of a party and that under the Rules of Court a judgment is binding also to successors-in-interest
and that petitioners are entitled to enforce the CARs decision
Respondent Pastora on the other hand allege that it is not an ordinary ejectment case but
an ejectment of an agricultural lessee and the right being asserted (motion for execution) is
personal to Olimpio Bonifacio and it died with him

ISSUE: Whether or not the case involved is an ejectment case or an ejectment of

agricultural lessee.

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that although it is true that the case involved a
ejectment of agricultural lessee it does not operate to bar the application to the case the rule that
ejectment cases survives the death of a party.
Ejectment of agricultural lessee was authorized not only when the landownerlessor desired to cultivate the landholding but also when a member of his immediate family so
desired. The law did not intend to limit the right of cultivation strictly and personally to the
landowner but to extend the exercise of such right to the members of his immediate family. Right
of cultivation as ground for ejectment was not a right exclusive and personal to the land-owner
lessor.
The right to cultivate the landholding asserted in CAR case not being a right
which is purely personal to the Olimpio Bonifacio, the right was transmitted to petitioners as
heirs and successors-in-interest and thereby they are entitled for the enforcement of the
judgment in the CAR case.

NISNISAN vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan are owners of 4.9 hectares of land in Davao. The
son of Gavino who is Policarpio is the one who is cultivating the 1 hectare since 1961
Gavino and Policarpio entered into leasehold tenancy contract on which they have a
sharing arrangement as to the harvest with Policarpio having a bigger share.
2 years later, Gavino sold the 2 hectares of their land to Spouses Mancera and the land
tenanted by Petitioner spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan was part of it. As a result, the
Spouses Policarpio and Erlinda were ousted from their landholding
Petitioner spouses filed an action for reinstatement of tenancy holding against spouses
Mancera before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in Davao. The case was transferred to
RTC of Davao due to CARs abolition.

Several years after, Gavino Nisnisan demanded from Mancera to repurchase the
landholding but he was refused.

Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan together with spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Nisnisan
filed a complaint with the RTC for (a) repurchase of the land (b) declaration of nullity of sale (c)
reinstatement of tenancy holding and (d) damages.
The RTC dismissed the complaint saying that petitioners-spouses allegation of tenancy is
repudiated by affidavit executed by Gavino Nisnisan stating that the land is not tenanted.

Petitioners-spouses Gavino and Florencia appealed to the Court of Appeals but the same affirmed
the RTCs ruling.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners Spouses Policarpio and Erlinda Policarpio voluntarily
surrendered their tenancy holding.

RULING:
While there are annotations in Gavino Nisnisans certificate of title that the subject land is
not tenanted, said annotations are not conclusive proof of the real relationship between Gavino
and Policarpio Nisnisan and are not binding upon the Court.
Annotations serves as notice to all persons of the existence of certification issued but it
neither adds to the correctness or validity of the certification.
It is well-settled that the findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian
reform or his authorized representative , in a given locality concerning absence or presence of
tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely Preliminary or provisional and
not binding upon the courts.
Petitioners spouses have sufficiently shown that they are the tenants of the spouses
Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan as evidence by a document named Panagsabutan Sa Abang Sa
Yuta acknowledge by a judge. The Essential Elements of Tenancy relationship are present in the
case, namely: 1. Parties are the landowner and the tenant 2. Subject matter is agricultural land 3.
There is consent 4. Purpose is agricultural production 5. Personal cultivation by tenants 6.
Sharing of harvest between parties.
The documentary evidence of leasehold tenancy relationship was never rebutted by
respondent spouses Mancera. Respondent spouses failed to present any evidence to show that
petitioner spouses surrendered their landholding voluntarily after respondent purchased that
property. Voluntary surrender in order to terminate agricultural tenancy shall be proved
convincingly and sufficiently by competent evidence.

The agricultural leasehold cannot be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in an
agricultural leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the
landholding. He can be ejected for a cause which is absent in the case at bar.