Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

ABUNDO vs. COMELEC ABUNDO vs.

- The fact that private respondent knew of, and


COMELEC ABUNDO vs. COMELEC ENDAYA vs consented to, the said lease contract by signing
CA - FIDELI as witness to the agreement may not be
construed as a waiver of his rights as an
LABOR LAWS; TENANCY; EFFECTS OF ABOLITION OF agricultural lessee.
SHARE TENANCY AND ESTABLISHMENT OF - On the contrary, it was his right to know about
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD. — R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as the lease contract since, as a result of the
amended by R.A. No. 6839 (1971). agreement, he had to deal with a new person
- abolished share tenancy throughout the instead of with the owners directly as he used to.
Philippines from 1971 and established the - No provision may be found in the lease contract
agricultural leasehold system by operation of and the renewal contract even intimating that
law. private respondent has waived his rights as an
agricultural lessee.
Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security
of tenure by providing the following: AGRICULTURAL LESSEE NOT CREATED WITHOUT
1. The agricultural leasehold relation once OWNER'S CONSENT; RULE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE
established shall confer upon the agricultural AT BAR
lessee the right to continue working on the - It is true that the Court has ruled that
landholding until such leasehold relation is agricultural tenancy is not created where the
extinguished. consent of the true and lawful owners is absent.
2. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to - But this doctrine contemplates a situation where
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot an untenanted farm land is cultivated without
be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the the landowner's knowledge or against her will or
Court for causes herein provided. although permission to work on the farm was
given, there was no intention to constitute the
CIVIL LEASE CONTRACT GRANTING AUTHORITY TO LESSEE worker as the agricultural lessee of the farm
TO OVERSEE FARMING DOES NOT EXTINGUISH land.
LEASEHOLD RELATION. - The rule finds no application in the case at bar
- The fact that the landowner entered into a civil where the petitioners are successors-in-interest
lease contract over the subject landholding and to a tenanted land over which an agricultural
gave the lessee the authority to oversee the leasehold has long been established.
farming of the land, is not among the causes
provided by law for the extinguishment of the ENDAYA vs CA – FIDELIS
agricultural leasehold relation.
Sps. Natividad and San Diego owned an agricultural land at
Sec. 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. Batangas devoted to rice and corn. Since 1934 Fideli has
- The agricultural leasehold relation established been cultivating that land as tenant of sps. San Diego
under this Code shall be extinguished by: under 50-50 sharing agreement.
1. Abandonment of the landholding without
the knowledge of the agricultural lessor; On 1974 Spouses San Diego and Cassonova entered into a
2. Voluntary surrender of the landholding by lease contract for 4 yrs. Fideli signed as one of the two
the agricultural lessee, written notice of witnesses of that contract.
which shall be served three months in
advance; or The lease contract was renewed until May 1980 but the
3. Absence of the persons under Section nine rental was raised from 400 to 600php. Again, Fideli signed
to succeed to the lessee in the event of the contract as witness.
death or permanent incapacity of the
lessee. During the entire duration of the lease contract, Fideli
Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over continuously cultivated the land, sharing equally with
which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.
of ownership, e.g., sale, or transfer of legal possession,
such as lease, will not terminate the rights of the Sps. San Diego then sold the land to Spouses Endaya and
agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by the sale was registered with Register of Deeds. Howver,
making such rights enforceable against the transferee or Fideli continued to farm even though Endaya told him to
the landowner's successor in interest. vacate.

FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL LESSEE CONSENTED NOT A Fideli then filed at RTC Batangas saying that he be declared
WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT the agricultural tenant of petitioner.
RTC – DENIED as an agricultural lessee. On the contrary, it was his right
CA reversed RTC decision - saying that Fideli is an to know about the lease contract since, as a result of the
agricultural lessee. agreement, he had to deal with a new person instead of
with the owners directly as he used to.
Endaya appealed alleging that:
a. landowner cannot have a civil law lease contract The consent given by the original owners to constitute
w/ one person then have an agricultural private respondent as the agricultural lessee of the subject
leasehold agreement with another over the landholding binds private respondents who, as successors-
same land in-interest of the Spouses San Diego, step into the latter’s
b. private respondent consented to the lease shoes, acquiring not only their rights but also their
agreement b/w Spouses San Diego and obligations
Cassanova by signing the lease agreement and
renewal as a witness of such contract, hence, Fideli has unilaterally decided to pay only 25% of the net
Fideli waived his right as an agricultural lessee. harvests to petitioner but his agreement with the Spouses
San Diego, the original owners, was for a fifty-fifty (50-50)
ISSUE: W/N Fideli is an agricultural tenant of petitioner? sharing of the net produce of the land. The court held that
the same sharing agreement should be maintained
HELD: YES, between Endaya and Fideli.
RA 3844, established the agricultural leasehold system and
abolished the share tenancy. Hence, the Court ordered Fideli to pay the back rentals
from 190 -1992 + legal interest at legal rate. · (Doctrine:
Sec 8 gave agricultural lessees security of tenure "The Once a leasehold relationship is established, the
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall Agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure)
confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAWS; R.A.
The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of NO. 3844 (CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS); RULES ON
tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected SUCCESSION TO TENANCY RIGHTS.
therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes Sec 9 of RA 3844 is clear and unequivocal in providing for
herein provided" the rules on succession to tenancy rights. A close
examination of the provision leaves no doubt as to its
The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease rationale of providing for continuity in agricultural
contract over the same land is not among the causes for leasehold relation in case of death or incapacity of a party.
extinguished of agricultural leasehold relation.
To this end, it provides that in case of death or permanent
Sec 10: Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his
by Expiration of Period, etc. landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the
agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the
The agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall landholding personally.
not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or
period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or In the same vein, the leasehold shall bind the legal heirs of
transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. the agricultural lessor in case of death or permanent
incapacity of the latter.
In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers
the legal possession of the landhold-ing, the purchaser or It is to achieve this continuity of relationship that the
transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and agricultural lessor is mandated by law to choose a
substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. successor-tenant within one month from the death or
incapacity of the agricultural lessee from among the
Hence, transactions involving the agricultural land over following:
which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change 1. surviving spouse;
of ownership will not terminate the rights of the 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or
agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by 3. the next eldest direct descendant or
making such rights enforceable against the transferee or descendants in the order of their age.
the landowners successor in interest.
Should the lessor fail to exercise his choice within one
The fact that private respondent knew of, and consented month from the death of the tenant, the priority shall be in
to, the said lease contract by signing as witness to the accordance with the aforementioned order.
agreement may not be construed as a waiver of his rights
On appeal to the DARAB, the latter reversed the decision
APPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. of the PARAD.
Applying Section 9 of Republic Act 3844, in the light of
prevailing jurisprudence, it is undeniable that respondent The CA affirmed the DARAB's decision.
Delia Razon Peña, the surviving spouse of the original
tenant, Anacleto Peña, is the first in the order of SC ruled that applying Section 9 of Republic Act 3844, in
preference to succeed to the tenancy rights of her the light of prevailing jurisprudence, it is undeniable that
husband because the lessor, Carolina Zacarias, failed to respondent Delia Razon Peña, the surviving spouse of the
exercise her right of choice within the one month period original tenant, Anacleto, is the first in the order of
from the time of Anacleto's death. preference to succeed to the tenancy rights of her
husband because the lessor, Carolina, failed to exercise
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRARIAN LAWS; R.A. her right of choice within the one month period from the
NO. 3844 (CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS); SALE OF time of Anacleto's death.
LANDHOLDING BY AGRICULTURAL LESSOR, ALLOWED;
CASE AT BAR. In addition, the sale of the land in question cannot be
As an owner, Carolina has the right to dispose of the declared null and void. As an owner, Carolina has the right
property without other limitations than those established to dispose of the property without prejudice, however, to
by law. This attribute of ownership is impliedly recognized the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of Delia
in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, where Razon Peña.
the law allows the agricultural lessor to sell the
landholding, with or without the knowledge of the JURISPRUDENCE:
agricultural lessee and at the same time recognizes the In Manuel vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled that:
right of preemption and redemption of the agricultural Agricultural leasehold relationship is not extinguished by
lessee. the death or incapacity of the parties. In case the
agricultural lessee dies or is incapacitated, the leasehold
The existence of tenancy rights of agricultural lessee relation shall continue between the agricultural lessor and
cannot affect nor derogate from the right of the any of the legal heirs of the agricultural lessee who can
agricultural lessor as owner to dispose of the property. The cultivate the landholding personally, in the order of
only right of the agricultural lessee or his successor in preference provided under Section 9 of Republic Act 3844,
interest is the right of preemption and/or redemption. as chosen by the lessor within one month from such death
or permanent incapacity.
MILESTONE REALTY AND CO., INC. VS. CA – PENA AND
EUGENIO
VILLAVIZA vs. JUDGE TOMAS PANGANIBAN, ET. AL
FACTS: Carolina Zacarias became the absolute owner of
the subject landholding by virtue of a Deed of Extrajudicial AGRICULTURAL TENANCY; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR
Settlement and Affidavit of Settlement executed by the VIOLATION OF SECURITY OF TENURE OF TENANT.
other heirs of Alfonso Olympia and Spouses Claro and A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under
Cristina Zacarias. Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the
landholder created by law, and an action for violation
Anacleto Peña was a tenant of the property. He died thereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144
intestate and was survived by his second wife, Delia and of the Civil Code.
his children in his first marriage, including Emilio.
EJECTED TENANT'S EARNINGS ELSEWHERE NOT
Emilio, Delia, and respondent Raymundo Eugenio, DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES. — Under section 27 (1) of
continued tilling and cultivating the property. Later, Republic Act 1199, as amended, an illegally ejected
Carolina sold the subject property to William Perez and the tenant's earnings elsewhere may not be deducted from
latter sold it to Milestone. but is to be added to the damages granted him upon
reinstatement.
Private respondents Delia and Raymundo filed a complaint
with the PARAD praying, inter alia, to declare as null and FACTS:
void the series of purchase and sale of the subject The Court of Agrarian Relations, Cabanatuan City decided
property and to recognize and respect the tenancy of that petitioners should be paid on the amount stated and
private respondents Delia and Raymundo. respondents should vacate the land in favor of the
petitioners.
PARAD dismissed the complaint.
LC found that respondents were tenants since 1944 owned PAYMENT OF REASONABLE PRICE NOT OBSTACLE TO
by D. Fajardo. Fajardo then gave the land through civil REQUIREMENT OF TENDER.
lease to Q. Capalad starting year 1955 – 1956. The right of a redemptioner to pay a reasonable price
under Art. 1620 does not excuse him from the duly to
Fajardo installed new tenants on the land and cultivated make proper tender of the price that can be honestly
land thru machineries. However, when the old tenants deemed reasonable under the circumstances, without
came as they yearly does, they were surprised that lands prejudice to final arbitration by the courts; nor does it
were already cultivated and managed by different tenants. authorize said redemptioner to demand that the vendee
They talked to Capalad for their reinstatement, Capalad accept payment by installments.
promised it to them but never did.
RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED WITHIN SPECIFIED TIME LIMITS.
ISSUE: W/N Agrarian court erred in their decision to Both under the Land Reform Act and Art. 1620 of the Civil
reinstate the old tenants and to give them damages plus Code, the right of legal redemption must be exercised
their loss on time that they did not cultivate the land? within specified time limits: and the statutory periods
would be rendered meaningless and of easy evasion unless
HELD: DENIED the redemptioner is required to make an actual tender in
A tenant's right to be respected in his tenure under good faith of what he believed to be the reasonable price
Republic Act 1199, as amended, is an obligation of the of the land sought to be redeemed.
landholder created by law and an action for violation
hereof prescribes in ten years under No. 2 of Article 1144 RUNNING OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD NOT DEPENDENT
of the Civil Code UPON TENANT'S OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN FUNDS.
There is no expression in the law (R.A. 3844) which
The tenancy court found that the ejected tenants- indicates, or even hints, that the 2-year redemption period
respondents have engaged in gainful occupations since will not commence to run until the tenant obtains
their illegal ejectment and had delayed the filing of the financing from the Land Bank, or stops the tenant from
case, and for these reasons the court made an award for securing redemption funds from some other source. The
damages against Quirino Capalad equivalent to only two considerations expressed in this decision on the
harvests based on the landholder's share for the crop year confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait an
1954-1955. indefinite time until the lessee acquires the means for
making the redemption militate against construing the
The premises for the award are erroneous. Under section statement of purposes for which the Land Bank is created
27(1) of Republic Act 1199, as amended, a tenant's (Sec. 74)
earnings may not be deducted from the damages because
the said section positively provides that the tenant's REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR TENDER OR CONSIGNATION
freedom to earn elsewhere is to be added AFFORDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID LITIGATION. — It
may be added that unless tender or consignation is made
("in addition") to his right to damages in case of illegal requisite to the valid exercise of the tenant's right to
ejectment (Lustre, et al. vs. CAR, et al., L-19654, March 21, redeem, everytime a redemption is attempted, a case
1964). must be filed in court to ascertain the reasonable price. On
the other hand, a prior tender by the tenant of the price
The amount of the award to each respondent should not, that he considers reasonable affords an opportunity to
however be disturbed because the respondents non- avoid litigation, for the landowner may well decide to
appeal from the decision indicates their satisfaction accept a really reasonable offer, considering that he would
therewith and a waiver of any amounts other than those thereby save the attorney's fees and the expense of
indicated in the decision (David v. de la Cruz, et al., L- protracted litigation.ondition precedent to the alienation
11656, 18 April 1958; Dy, et al. vs. Kuizon, L-16654, 30 of a landholding.
Nov. 1961).
FACTS:

BASBAS vs ENTENA (P) Pablo Basbas is the leasehold tenant of a 1 1/2 hectare
parcel of riceland Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned by
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; AGRICULTURAL LAND defendant Rufino Entena and presently owned by spouses
REFORM CODE; RIGHT OF LEGAL REDEMPTION; TENDER Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena co defendants.
OR CONSIGNATION OF THE PRICE REQUIRED.
The timely exercise of the right of legal redemption On April 11, 1964, (D) Rufino Entena executed a deed of
requires either tender of the price or valid consignation sale of the aforementioned lot in favor of (D) spouses
thereof. Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena.
On May 25, 1964, (D) Rufino Entena sent a letter, marked AGRARIAN COURT – dismissed the case - aintiff failed to
Exhibit 'I', to (P), to which the latter sent a reply dated June make tender of payment and consignation of the purchase
4, 1964, marked as Exhibit 'A'. price the landowner can not be compelled to sell the
On June 4, 1964, (P) wrote a letter, marked Exhibit 'B', to property to him.
the Governor of the Land Authority, to which he received a
reply from the Acting Officer in Charge of the Land The appellant-tenant's claim to preference in purchasing
Authority, dated June 22, 1964, which is marked as Exhibit the land he is working on, in case the said land is to be
'C', of which reply (Exhibit 'C') (D) have not been given sold, or to his right to redeem it in 2 years should the land
copy or otherwise informed. be sold without his knowledge, is predicated upon
Sections 11 and 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code
Deed of sale mentioned in paragraph 2, was registered in (Republic Act 3844):
the office of the register of deeds of Laguna on May 26, SEC. 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption.- In case the
1964. The certification of the Register of Deeds respecting agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the
said sale is marked as Exhibit 'D'. agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy
the same under reasonable terms and conditions:
(D) Rufino Entena and his wife Aniceta Carapatan executed a. That the entire landholding offered for sale must
an affidavit, dated April 11, 1964, marked as Exhibit 'I' — be pre-empted by the Land Authority if the
defendant Register of Deeds. owner so desires unless the majority of the
lessees object to such acquisition:
(D) sps Flaviano Tibay and Angelina Entena are son-in-law b. That where there are two or more agricultural
and daughter, of defendant Rufino Entena, and spouses lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential
live separately from their father. right only to the extent of the area actually
cultivated by him.
(P) has not deposited any sum of money in this Court to ***The right of pre-emption under this section may be
cover the pre-emption or redemption price." exercised within ninety days from notice in writing, which
shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected."
Exhibit "I" - letter sent by Rufino Entena to the tenant,
landholding put for sale at P13,000.00 /h and the tenant SEC. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption.—In case the
being given 90 days to communicate his intention to landholding is sold to a third person without the
purchas: otherwise, the land would be offered to other knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have
buyers. the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and
consideration:
Exhibit "A - tenant's reply to the landholder dated June 4, a. That the entire landholding sold must be
1964, accepting the latter's offer to sell the land, although redeemed;
disagreeing to the quoted price therefor. b. That where there are two or more agricultural
- informed the landholder that he was enlisting lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of
the aid of the government in purchasing the redemption only to the extent of the area
land. actually cultivated by him.
***The right of redemption under this Section may be
Exhibit "3" - tenant's letter of June 4, 1964 addressed to exercised within two years from the registration of the
the Governor of the Land Authority, asking the help of said sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal
agency to acquire the land he was working on and which redemption."
was being offered for sale.
ISSUE:
Exhibit "C" - answer of the Acting OIC of the Land W/N Court of Agrarian Relations erred in dismissing the
Authority, informing the tenant that his petition was action for non-tender of the redemption price, since the
already being processed and definite action thereon will law nowhere requires such tender?
be taken as soon as the Land Bank shall have been fully
organized. HELD: Denied

Exhibit "I"- Register of Deeds" - sworn affidavit of the No evidence that LRC has proclaimed that the government
spouses Rufino Entena and Aniceta Carapatan, dated April machineries and agencies in the region are already
11, 1964, attesting to the alleged fact that the tenant, operating, as required by Section 4 of Republic Act 3844.
Pablo Basbas, was fully notified of the sale of their land 90
days before said conveyance, and that the tenant had Granting that Sections 11 and 12 are operative, yet in
refused, or failed to exercise, the right of pre-emption Torres de Conejero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., L-
granted him under the Agricultural Land Reform Code. 21812, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 775, this SC ruled that the
timely exercise of the right of legal redemption requires
either tender of the price or valid consignation.

That the legal redemptioner is only required to pay a


reasonable price is no obstacle to the requirement of
tender, ruled in the Torres case.

Under Sections 11 and 12 of the Land Reform Act. under


Article 1620 of the Civil Code, the right of legal redemption
must be exercised within specified time limits: and the
statutory periods would be rendered meaningless and of
easy evasion unless the redemptioner is required to make
an actual tender in good faith of what he believed to be
reasonable price of the land sought to be redeemed.

Section 74 of the Land Reform Act (Republic Act No.


3844) "Land Bank of the Philippines" intended 'to finance
the acquisition by the Government of landed estates for
division and resale to small landholders

aAs well as the purchase of the landholding by the


agricultural lessee from the landowner.

No expression in this part of the law indicates, that the 2-


year redemption period will not commence to run until the
tenant obtains financing from the Land Bank.

Or stops the tenant from securing redemption funds from


some other source.

The considerations expressed in this decision on


the confiscatory result of requiring the landowner to wait
an indefinite time until the lessee acquires the means for
making the redemption militate against construing the
statement of purposes for which the Land Bank is created
(Section 74) as condition precedent to the alienation of a
landholding.