You are on page 1of 1

The petitioner presents four (4) arguments in this case.

Petitioner first asserts that she has a legal personality in filing the case by. Maria,
owner of the subject parcel of land, died intestate. Adela Tinio and Simon Tinio, being the
siblings of Maria, gained rights over the said land upon the latter’s death. Petitioner
anchors her right over the land when Meny allegedly waived her rights and interest over
the subject land in favor of the petitioner, by virtue of a “Judicial Partition and Waiver of
Right” executed last 02 June 2002. The logical antecedent in this case, according to the
petitioner, is based on the presumption that Simon is already dead when Trinidad Tinio
executed the judicial partition because the inheritance of the latter is solely grounded in
her right of succession from the death of his father, Simon Tinio. Trinidad could not have
executed a Judicial Partition if her father, Simon Tinio, was still living. The petitioner
further argues that Cruz has acknowledged Simon and Trinidad Tinio as the owners of
the subject landholding by paying for the lease rentals in the latter’s favor.
By establishing the legal personality of herein petitioner on the subject land
holding, we now go to the second argument of the petitioner which revolves around the
mortgage made by Respondent Cruz without Trinidad’s consent. According to the
petitioner, as enumerated in R.A. 3844, mortgaging the tenanted area by the lessee
without the knowledge and consent of the landowner is not one of the enumerated rights
of an agricultural lessee.
We now go to the third contention of the petitioner. She argues that Respondent
is not the owner of the subject landholding as the latter did not properly undergo the
proper procedure in transferring the land which are: first, the issuance of a CLT; and
second, the issuance of an EP. Consequently, if we are to apply the said rules without a
CLT, Respondent Cruz cannot be deemed as the owner of the subject landholding.
The fourth and last argument of the petitioner is that since respondent Cruz is not
deemed as the owner of the subject landholding, then the lease rentals previously paid
by the latter cannot be considered as partial payments for amortization of the property. In
line with this, the petitioner further asserts that since the respondent failed to present any
evidence of his ownership under P.D. 27, the previous lease rentals paid to the landowner
shall not be considered as advance payment for the amortization of the land.