PHILBANCOR FINANCE vs. CA G.R. No. 129572 June 26, 2000 FACTS: Vicente Hizon, Jr.

is the owner of agricultural lands which were tenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizon mortgaged the subject property to Philbancor without his tenants knowledge, and when he failed to pay his obligations, Philbancor was able to acquire the property at a public auction. The tenants allegedly only found out about the mortgage seven years after the public auction, when they were notified by Philbancor to vacate the lots. Thus, they filed a complaint for maintenance of possession with redemption and tenancy right of pre-emption against Philbancor and Hizon with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB). The PARAB ruled in favor of the tenants and ordered Philbancor to execute the necessary Deed of Redemption in favor of the tenants. The DARAB and the CA affirmed the decision. ISSUE: W/N the tenants could still exercise their right of redemption, five years after the registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds HELD: NO. Section 12 of RA 3844 provides that the right of redemption may be exercised within 2 years from the registration of the sale. The redemption period had already expired when the tenants filed the complaint for redemption. Nevertheless, the tenants may continue in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as legitimate tenants because the right of tenancy attaches to the landholding by operation of law. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. HEIRS OF ROMAN SORIANO vs. CA G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 FACTS: The land in dispute in this case is originally owned by Adriano Soriano who died sometime in 1947. Adriano Soriano has 7 heirs whom leased the subject parcel of land to David de Vera and Consuelo Villasista for a term of 15 years starting July 1, 1967. The lease contract states that

Roman Soriano will serve as the caretaker of the said property during the period of lease. During the effectivity of the lease contract, the heirs of Adriano Soriano entered into extrajudicial settlement of his estate. As a result of the settlement, the property was divided into two property, Lot No. 60052 which was assigned to Lourdes and Candido, heirs of Adriano and the heirs of Dionisia another heir of Adriano. The other property, Lot No. 8459 was assigned to Francisco, Librada, Elcociado and Roman all heirs of Adriano. The owners of Lot No. 60052 sold the lot to spouses Braulio and Aquiliana Abalos, and the owners of Lot No. 8459, except Roman also sold their shares to spouses Briones. On March 14, 1968, the de Vera spouses ousted Roman as caretaker and appointed Isidro Versoza and Vidal Versoza as his substitute. Roman filed a case for reinstatement and reliquidation against the de Vera spouses in CAR Case No. 1724-P-68. On September 30, 1969, the Agrarian Court rendered a decision authorizing the ejectment of Roman. On appeal, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The deicion became final and executor. However, before it was executed, the parties entered into a post-decisional agreement wherein the de Vera spouses allowed Roman Soriano to sub-lease the property until the termination of the original lease on June 30, 1982. This agreement was approved by the CAR court in an order dated December 22, 1972. On August 16, 1976, the Abalos spouses applied for the registration of the disputed parcel of land. Roman Soriano and the Director of Lands acted as oppositors. On June 27, 1983, the Land Registration Court granted the application for registration. On April 13, 1983, after the expiration of the original lease and sub-lease in favor of Roman Soriano, the Abalos spouses filed a case for unlawful detainer against Roman Soriano, later, this case was dismissed on motion of the Abalos spouses. On July 14, 1983, Elcociado, Librada, Roman, Francisco, Lourdes, Candido and the heirs of Dionisia filed a complaint to annul the deeds of sale they executed in favor of the Abalos spouses or should the deeds be not annulled, to allow Roman, Elcociado and Librada to redeem their shares in the disputed land and to uphold Roman Sorianos possession of the fishpond portion of the property as a tenant-caretaker. After the dismissal of the case for unlawful detainer, the Abalos spouses filed on August 22, 1984, a motion for execution of the postdecisional order embodying the agreement of Roman Soriano and the de Vera spouses allowing the former to sublease the property. On October 25, 1984, Roman filed a motion to suspend hearing on the rental demanded by the Abalos spouses until after the other issues raised in his opposition to the motion for execution are resolved. The

motion to suspend hearing on the issue of the rentals was denied and the trial court authorized the substitution of the de Vera spouses by the Abalos spouses. Roman Soriano's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 16, 1985. Roman filed petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals but the latter denied the petition, pending the denial of this petition, Roman Soriano died. Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, the heirs of Roman Soriano brought this case in the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not a winning party (ABALOS) in a land registration case can effectively eject the possessor (SORIANO) thereof, whose security of tenure rights is still pending determination before the DARAB. HELD: No. The Court held that a judgment in a land registration case cannot effectively used to oust the possessor of the land, whose security of tenure rights are still pending determination before the DARAB. There is no dispute that Abalos spouses' title over the land under litigation has been confirmed with finality. However, the declaration pertains only to ownership and does not automatically include possession, especially soin the instant case where there is a third party occupying the said parcel of land, allegedly in the concept of an agricultural tenant. Agricultural lessees are entitled to security of tenure and they have the right to work on their respective landholdings once the leasehold relationship is established. Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself ad deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood. The exercise of the right of ownership, then, yields to the exercise of the rights of an agricultural tenant. The Supreme Court decided to refrain from ruling whether petitioners may be dispossessed of the subject property while petitioner's status as tenant has not yet been declared by the DARAB.