Facts: The petitioner DAR and the LBP, filed their respective motions for reconsideration

contending mainly that, contrary to the court’s conclusion, the opening of trust accounts
in favor of the rejecting landowners is sufficient compliance with the mandate of R.A
6657. moreover, it is argued that there is no legal basis for allowing the withdrawal of
money deposited in trust for the rejecting landowners pending the determination of the
final valuation of their properties.
The SC denied their motions.
Held:
Sec 16. of RA was very specific in limiting the type deposit to be made as compensation
for the rejecting landowners, that is in cash or in LBP bonds..
“upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or
no response from the land owner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designating
by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in bonds in accordance with this act, the dar
shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper register of deeds
to issue TCT in thename of RP
The said provision is very clear and unambiguous, foreclosing any doubt as to allow an
expanded construction that would include the opening of trust accounts within the
coverage of term deposit.
Wen the law speaks in clear language, there is no room for interpretation, but only for
appilication. Thus, recourse to any rule which allows the opening of trust accounts as a
mode of deposit goes beyond the scope of the said provision and is therefore
impermissible.

Facts: in 1978 sotero pascual became a tenant of Jose Resureccion, the president of the
petitioner, CRSC. At catmon, sta.maria. when sotero died, he was suceded in tenancy by
his wife ana. As such tenant, she had a home and lot and a house on the landholding. She
was assisted by her son, private respondent hermigildo, who also occupies a portion of
the landholding distinct from that occupied by his mother.
Petitioner sought to eject the respondent from the portion occupied by his house but the
latter, insisting that he is entitled to occupancy since he is helping her mother in the
cultivation of the land, he refused to vacate. The petitioner instituted an ejectment suit
against hermigildo before MTYC of sta. maria. Finding no tenancy relationship between
petitioner and hermigildo, the MTC ordered the latter to vacate the land.
On appeal, the RTC reversed the MTC and ordered that the case be remanded to the
DARAB for adjudication. The court was of the opinion that hermigildo cannot just
simply be ejected without circumventing the law and came up with the conclusion that
hermigildo’s havin a house on the landholding is but an incident of the tenancy.
In this petition for review for certiorari cecilleville contends that the appellate court erred
in not finding thjat while pri. Resp is entitled to work on agricultural land of pet in his
capacity as member of the family of tenant ana, he cannot occupy a substantial portion
and utilize it for the residential purposes.
HELD:
As clearly provided by section 22, paragraph 3, RA 1199, as amended by RA. 2263, only
a tenant is granted the right to a home lot and the right to maintain a house thereon.
Hence, private respondent is not entitled to a home lot.
The law is clear. Only a tenant has the right.
Thus, if the court were to follow the respondent’s argument and allow all the members of
the tenant’s immediate farmhousehold to construct and maintain their houses and to be
entitled for a homelot, farms will then converted into rows, if not, colonies of houses.
The landholder is also entitled to the protection of the law. The policy of social justice is
not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the under
privilege.

Held;
A provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative w/o the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation or that which apllies sufficient rules by means of
which the right grants may be enjoyed or protected is self executing.
Apparently, sec 10, 2nd par, article xii is a mandatory, positive command which is
complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules
for its enforcement. From its very words, the provison does not require any legislation to
put in operation. Blatantly, it is self-executing.
When our constitution mandates that in the grabt of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering national patrimony and economy, the state shall give preference to qualified
Filipino people.
No.2
In its plain and obvious meaning, the term national patrimony pertains to heritage.
When the consti speaks of nat patri, it refers not only to the nat res. Of the phil. But also
to the cul her of the Filipinos.
Manila hotel has become a landmark, clearly, MHC falls under the term nat pat. While
the term qual. Fil. As used in our consti also includes atleast 60% of w/c is owned by the
fil.
In this case the SC made reference to the fil first policy. Since the policy provisons
bestows preference on qual fil.