CASES: AGRARIAN 1. MORTA SR. VS. OCCIDENTAL 2. HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE VS. CA 3. HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA VS. CA 4.

JOSE OCA VS. CA 5. SPUSES ATUEL VS. SPOUSES BERNABE 6. MARINO VS. REVILLEZA 7. PHILBANCOR VS. CA 8. HEIRS OF ROMAN SORIANO VS. CA 9. VALENCIA VS. CA 10. NATALIA VS. CA Morta sr. Vs. Occidental FACTS: Jaime Morta and Purificacion Padilla filed a suit against Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for allegedly gathering pili nuts, anahaw leaves, and coconuts from their respective land and destroying their banana and pineapple plants. Occidental claimed that he was a tenant of the actual owner of the land, Josefina Baraclan, and that Morta and Padilla were not actually the owners of the land in question. The trial court ruled in favor of Morta and Padilla. Occidental, et al. appealed, contending that the case was cognizable by the DAR Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). Thus, the RTC reversed the lower court and ruled in favor of Occidental, stating that the case is a tenancyrelated problem which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA affirmed the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not the cases are properly cognizable by the DARAB.
G.R. NO. 123417 G.R. NO. 138016 G.R. NO. 132048 G.R. NO. 144817 G.R. NO. 139561 G.R. NO. 155544 G.R. NO. 129572 G.R. NO. 128177 G.R. NO. 122363 G.R. NO. 126462

JUNE 10, 1999 JAN 30, 2002 MAR 6, 2002 MAR 7, 2002 JUNE 10, 2003 AUG 24, 2007 JUN 26, 2000 AUG 15, 2001 APR 29, 2003 NOV. 12, 2002

DARAB JURISDICTION DARAB JURISDICTION

RIGHT OF TENANCY SECURITY OF TENURE RIGHT TO HIRE A TENANT

HELD: NO. Since there is a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the land, the issue is clearly outside DARABs jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the matter. At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be considered tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. Assuming arguendo that Josefina is the owner, then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the requisites, the issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; That there is consent between the parties to the relationship; That the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; That there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and That the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

THE HEIRS OF JOSE JUANITE ET. AL vs. CA (CRUZ)

G.R. No. 138016. January 30, 2002

CASES: AGRARIAN

FACTS: The spouses Edilberto Romero and Felisa Romero owned a piece of agricultural land in Alegria, Surigao del Norte. On different dates, the Romeros sold separate portions thereof to Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonson. Claiming to be the agricultural tenants of the land in question, Jose Juanite (now deceased) and his wife, Nicolasa O. Juanite, filed a complaint with the Provincial Agricultural Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), against the spouses Edilberto and Felisa Mercado and their vendees abovenamed for the cancellation of the sales adverted to and for the Juanites to exercise their right of redemption pursuant to RA No. 3844, section 12 of which reads:

Sec. 12. Lessees Right of Redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.

Edilberto Romero, et al., as defendants, filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses. They alleged that the Romeros, being the owners of the property, had the perfect right to sell any portion thereof to any person. They strongly denied the allegation of the Juanites that the latter were their tenants.

On October 28, 1993, the PARAB (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) rendered his decision declaring the Juanite spouses as tenants; directing the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) to prepare the leasehold contract in their favor; declaring the deeds of sale executed by the Romero spouses in favor of Efren Pania, Macario Sanchez and Pio Yonsonnull and void; and directing the latter to vacate the premises.

On appeal, the DARAB reversed. In its decision dated April 21, 1998 , it declared that the Juanites were not tenants on the subject landholding; and hence, had no right of redemption.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were tenants of the Romero spouses (respondents) as to entitle them to the right of redemption.

HELD: The court affirmed the decision of PARAB. The PARAB declared the petitioners to be tenants on the basis of the following evidence:

a) certification of 28 persons to the effect that spouses Juanite had been working on the land as tenants; b) in the deed of absolute spouses Juanite were his tenants; sale signed by Edilberto Romero as vendor, he stated that

c) the spouses Juanite had been in possession and cultivating the land since 1969.

CASES: AGRARIAN

Without any evidence to support its finding, the DARAB reversed the finding of the PARAB and found that petitioner Juanites were not tenants because they failed to submit evidence that they were sharing the harvests of the with the landowners, respondent Romero spouses. SC agreed with the Court of Appeals that the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests.

All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. Unless a person has established his status as a dejure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws.

But note that from the time of the landowners admission that petitioners were tenants on the subject landholding, the element of sharing harvest is assumed as a factual element in that admission.

HON. ANTONIO M. NUESA vs. CA (DAVID)

G.R. No. 132048 March 6, 2002 FACTS: On May 25, 1972, then Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order of Award in favor of Jose Verdillo over two (2) parcels of agricultural land in Buenavista Estate, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, covering 14,496 and 19,808 square meters, respectively, under the following conditions: - Within 6 months, he shall personally cultivate at least of the area; or - Occupy and construct his/her house in case of residential lot and pay at least the first installment In no case shall an agreement to sell or deed of sale be issued in favor of the covering the lots without a certification issued by the Land Reform Project Team Leader of Land Settlement Superintendent that the awardee(s) has/have developed or devoted to some productive enterprise at least one-half of the area thereof, or constructed his/her/their house therein in case of residential land. After twenty-one years, private respondent filed an application with the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the purchase of said lots claiming that he had complied with the conditions set forth in the Order. Restituto Rivera, herein petitioner, filed a letter of protest against private respondent claiming that contrary to the manifestation of private respondent, it is petitioner who had been in possession of the land and had been cultivating the same. Petitioner had filed his own application for said parcels in opposition to that of private respondent. On December 27, 1993, a representative of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office undertook an investigation and found that the subject lots were previously tenanted by other persons and it is clear that Jose Verdillo has culpably violated the terms and conditions of the Order of Award issued in his favor.

CASES: AGRARIAN

On January 24, 1994, petitioner, the Regional Director of DAR, Antonio M. Nuesa, promulgated an Order, cancelling Order of Award issued in favor of Jose Verdillo and giving Restituto Rivera the opportunity to purchase said lots. ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying petitioners claim that in this cas e, the Board (DARAB) acted in grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of its jurisdiction HELD: Yes the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the DARAB and its officials have not committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The case involves the strict administrative implementation and award of lots. The matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction and administrative competence of the DAR (Regional Director and Department Secretary) and not of the DARAB (including the Provincial Adjudicator and the Provincial Adjudication Board itself). Centeno vs. Centeno, the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. The DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R.A. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844 as amended by R.A. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Under Section 3(d) of R.A. 6657 (CARP Law), agrarian dispute is defined to include (d) ...any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

OCA vs. CA (ISMAEL)

G.R. No. 144817 March 7, 2002 FACTS: Petitioners Jose Oca and Isabelo Oca are the co-owners of a fishpond known in the locality as the "Purong" property situated in Bolosan, Dagupan City. The four petitioners are the civil law lessees of another called the "Salayog" property. Petitioner Jose Oca is also the sole and exclusive owner of two fishponds commonly called the "Perew" and the "Fabian" properties. Respondent Sergio O. Abalos claims to be the "share tenant-caretaker" of the above fishponds, asserting that he had been in peaceful possession, cultivation and care of the aforesaid fishponds from the time he received the same from the petitioners Oca brothers until the first week of May 1992 when he requested from them the share of the harvest and instead of acceding, petitioners demanded that he vacate the lands. A complaint for Peaceful Possession, Leasehold and Damages with Motion for the Issuance of Interlocutory Order was filed by the respondent against the petitioner with the PARAD. Petitioners in their answer denied that the respondent is a caretaker/tenant of the land. They acknowledged that the respondent is merely an industrial partner who had waived his right as such, in consideration of the amount of P140,000.00. After due proceedings, the PARAD rendered a Decision in favor of the respondent declaring him as a bona fide tenant of the subject fishponds. The above Decision was appealed by the petitioners to the DARAB but the Board affirmed in toto the Decision of the PARAD. Petitioners sought relief with the Court of Appeals and filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Appellate Court modified the Decision ruling that the private respondent cannot be a tenant of the "Salayog" property, he

CASES: AGRARIAN having sold his share and interest and had consequently, waived any interests he had thereon. Hence, the instant petition, raising as a new argument the supposed lack of jurisdiction of the PARAD over the subject fishponds.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners be permitted to impugn for the first time the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at this stage of the case? HELD: The well-entrenched rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties; it cannot be acquired through, or waived or enlarged or diminished by, their act or omission; neither is it conferred by acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the courts nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. An error in jurisdiction over the subject matter can be objected to at any instance, as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the action. This kind of defense can be invoked even for the first time on appeal or after final judgment. Such is understandable as this kind of jurisdiction, to stress, is statutorily determined.This rule on timing, however, is not absolute. In highly meritorious and exceptional circumstances, estoppel or waiver may operate as a shield to prevent a party from belatedly resorting to this form of defense. Thus, we have held in the leading case of Tijam v. Sibonghanoy that a party may be barred by estoppel by laches from invoking this plea for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. We defined laches as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or has declined to assert it."In the case at bar, we find the petitioners guilty of estoppel by laches. In the first place, they never disputed the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at any stage of the proceeding: whether in the Provincial Office level, the DARAB, or the Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding the presence of numerous opportunities in the various stages of this case to contest the adjudicator's exercise of jurisdiction, not once did they register a hint of protest. Neither can they claim that they were prevented from contesting its jurisdiction during the eight years this case was under litigation. The ends of justice and equity require that petitioners should not be allowed to defeat the tenant's right by belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction. Permitting petitioners to assail the jurisdiction of the Provincial Adjudicator at this late stage of the case would mean rendering useless all the proceedings held below. A great deal of time, effort and resources would be put to waste both on the part of the litigants and of the State. This is especially oppressive for the respondent, a tenant who cannot afford the discomforts of a protracted litigation.

SPOUSES ATUEL ET AL vs. SPOUSES VALDEZ (GATACELO)

G.R. No. 139561 June 10, 2003

FACTS: Respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession with damages with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Malaybalay, Bukidnon. They assailed the decision of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which ordered the segregation of the subject lot from the land of respondents and awarding the same to petitioners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the DARAB which reversed the decision of the MARO. After a review of the issues raised, the question is whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to resolve the controversy.

ISSUE:

CASES: AGRARIAN WON DARAB has jurisdiction to try and hear this case.

HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the DARAB has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the respondents' complaint for recovery of possession of the subject lot. Though the parties did not challenge the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court may motu proprio consider the issue of jurisdiction. The court has discretion to determine whether the DARAB validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by law. It may not be conferred on the court by consent or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. In the case at bar, the respondents did not allege the existence of tenancy relations, if any, between them and the petitioners. The allegations in the complaint indicate that the nature and subject matter of the instant case is for recovery of possession or accion publiciana. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy relations between the parties. Jurisdiction over an accion publiciana is vested in a court of general jurisdiction. 5.

6. Philbancor v. CA
GR No. 129572 26 June 2000 Pardo, J. 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. 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. 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. The right of tenancy attaches to the landholding by operation of law. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alien ation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. Heirs of Roman Soriano v. CA GR No. 128177 15 August 2001 Ynares-Santiago, J. A parcel of land originally owned by Adriano Soriano passed on to his heirs who leased the same to the spouses de Vera for 15 years beginning 1967 (until 1982). Roman, one Adrianos chil dren, was to act as caretaker of the property during the period of the lease. However, in 1968, the de Vera spouses ousted him from the property and appointed Isidro and Vidal Versoza as his substitutes. Because of this, Roman filed a case for reinstatement and reliquidation against the de Vera spouses. On appeal to the CA, he won. Prior to the execution of the CAs decision in 1972, the de Vera spouses and Roman entered into a post -decisional agreement wherein the spouses allowed Roman to sub-lease the property as an agricultural tenant until the termination of the lease in 1982. The said agreement was approved by the agrarian court. After executing an extrajudicial settlement among themselves, Adrianos heirs divided the property into 2 lots. The first wa s assigned to Lourdes, Candido, and the heirs of Dionisia; the other was assigned to Francisca, Librada, Elocadio, and Roman. In 1971, the first lot was sold by its owners to the spouses Abalos, while the of the second lot was sold to the same spouses by Elocadio, Francisca, and Librada. In 1976, the spouses Abalos filed with the RTC of Pangasinan an application for registration of title over the lots they bought from the heirs of Adriano (the first one and the pro-indiviso share of the second lot sold to them). The application was granted by the RTC, and affirmed both by the CA and SC. In 1983, Roman, along with Elocadio and Librada, filed a case against the Abalos spouses for annulment of document and/or redemption, ownership, and damages. It was denied by the trial court. In 1984, or 11 years after the approval of the post-decisional agreement between Roman and the spouses de Vera, the Abalos spouses filed with the agrarian court a motion for execution of the said post-decisional agreement which allowed Roman Soriano to sub-lease the property. The motion prayed that the spouses Abalos be placed in possession of the subject property, jointly with Roman Soriano, and to levy so much of Romans property to answer for the use and occupation of Roman of 6/7 share of the property. When Roman died in 1985, he was substituted by his heirs. It appears that in 1988, the land registration courts decision was partially executed by partitioning the second lot into twoone part in favor of Roman and the other in favor of the spouses Abalos. Romans heirs appealed to the CA, which affirmed the partition but reversed the order

CASES: AGRARIAN
of the land registration court directing the issuance of a writ of possession because of the pendency of the case instituted by Roman against the Abalos spouses. W/N the ruling in the land registration case in favor of the spouses Abalos becomes res judicata with respect to the security of tenure rights of the heirs of Roman Soriano. NO. What is in issue in the land registration case was ownership. The security of tenure case before the DARAB involved the issue of possession. It is important to note that although the spouses Abalos have been declared titled owners of the subject land, the exercise of their rights of ownership are subject to limitations that may be imposed by law. The Tenancy Act provides one such limitation. 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 and deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood. The exercise of ownership yields to the exercise of the rights of an agricultural tenant (as provided for in The Tenancy Act). Obiter: Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. There is ownership when a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, among which are the right to enjoy the thing owned and the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. On the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right.Possession may be had in two ways: possession in the concept of owner and possession of a holder. A judgment for ownership does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident. Valencia v. CA GR No. 122363 29 April 2003 Bellosillo, J. When Victor Valencia acquired two parcels of land, he entered into civil law leases with Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres Flores. Henson instituted Crescenciano and Marciano Frias to work on the property; while Fr. Flores appointed the Friases, plus some others, as farmhands. However, in Fr. Flores lease contract, there was a stipulation that he was pr ohibited from installing a leasehold tenant thereon. No such prohibition existed in Hensons contract. When Fr. Flores lease period expired, Valencia o rdered his farmhands to vacate the lot. The farmhands refused to do so, and actually even secured CLTs over the land in their names. Catalino Mantac, one of the farmhands, subsequently entered into a leasehold contract undertaking to have a profit-sharing agreement with Valencia. After 12 years, DAR investigated the matter and found that the right of the farmhands to the land ceased upon the termination of the lease contracts, except as regards to Mantac, with whom Valencia entered into a tenancy agreement. As such, it was recommended that the CLTs given to the other farmhands be cancelled. However, the Regional Office disregarded the investigation report and ruled that the farmhands had a right to continue on the land until otherwise ordered by the court. On appeal to the Office of the President, then Exec. Sec. Teofisto Guingona upheld the ruling of the DAR, with the modification that the area acquired by Valencia as homestead be excluded from the coverage of PD 27. Valencia then appealed to the CA contending that the Exec. Sec. erred in recognizing the farmhands as tenants, and disallowing him and his 7 compulsory heirs from exercising their right of retention under RA 6657. However, the CA dismissed the case. Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement? YES. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized. A different interpretation would be most unfair to the hapless and unsuspecting landowner who entered into a civil law lease agreement in good faith only to realize later on that he can no longer regain possession of his property due to the installation of a tenant by the civil law lessee. On the other hand, under the express provision of Art. 1649 of the Civil Code, the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In the case before us, not only is there no stipulation to the contrary; the lessee is expressly prohibited from subleasing or encumbering the land, which includes installing a leasehold tenant thereon since the right to do so is an attribute of ownership. The right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of a landowner, except as may be provided by law. Inherent in the right of landholders to install a tenant is their authority to do so; otherwise, without such authority, civil law lessees as landholders cannot install a tenant on the landholding. Tenancy relationship has been held to be of a personal character. Deforciants cannot install lawful tenants who are entitled to security of tenure. A contract of civil law lease can prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement. Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) The subject is agricultural land; (3) There is consent; (4) The purpose is agricultural production; (5) There is personal cultivation; and (6) There is sharing of harvests between them parties. An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure. The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by tenants de jure, not by those who are not true and

CASES: AGRARIAN
lawful tenants. The act of subletting to third persons extinguishes the agricultural leasehold relations, as this constitutes an abandonment of the landholding due to absence of personal cultivation. Obiter: Social justice is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is never justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor, or reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served for the poor and the rich alike according to the mandate of law. Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus. Interpreting and harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation.