REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY

PARAD CASE No. 1234 June 11, 2018

Trinidad Tinio, Petitioner,

vs.
JUAN CRUZ AND PEDRO MIRANDA, Respondents

DECISION

This is an action for Ejectment and Dispossession of Leasehold

Tenant with Collection of Back Rentals filed by herein Petitioner
Trinidad (herein referred to as “Trinidad”, for brevity) against
Respondent Juan Cruz (herein referred to as “Cruz”, for brevity) and
Pedro Miranda (herein referred to as “Miranda”, for brevity) involving
an agricultural land registered in the name of Maria, covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-3994, with an area of 7.0187
hectares, more or less, located in Barangay Talon, San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

Maria, Simon, and Adela, all surnamed Tinio, are siblings. Maria is
the registered owner of an agricultural land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-3994, with an area of 7.0187 hectares,
more or less, located in Barangay Talon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. In
1959, she died. Having no successor to the property, it was logically
transferred to Simon and Adela. However, Adela died in 1975.

On November 9, 1976, an Agricultural Leasehold Contract of the

subject landholding, with an area of 3.70 hectares, was executed by
and between Juan Cruz1 and Maria, through the latter’s overseer,
Simon. Such is allegedly registered with the Municipal Treasurer, as
well as the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO).

On June 2, 2000, Meny, who is allegedly the legal heir of Maria,

executed a “Judicial Partition and Waiver of Right,” waiving all her
rights and interest on the said property in favor of her alleged co-
owner, Trinidad.

On June 3, 2002, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional

Director (RD) issued an Order approving the retention area of
Trinidad.

On June 13, 2005 and on June 11, 2009, Cruz mortgaged the
tenanted area to co-respondent Pedro Miranda 2 as evidenced by the
“Hiraman na Salapi na may Pananagot na Pagsasaka.”

By virtue of these acts, an action for Ejectment and Dispossession of

Leasehold Tenant with Collection of Back Rentals was filed by herein
petitioner Trinidad against respondents Cruz and Miranda.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Petitioner first asserts that she has a legal personality in filing

the case. 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. Thus, Cruz is estopped from asserting the
1
Cruz for brevity
2
Miranda for brevity
ownership of Trinidad because of the positive act made by the
former.
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.

Respondent’s Arguments

Respondent alleged that petitioner Trinidad is not the lawful heir and
owner of the subject landholding. When P.D. 27 took effect on
October 21, 1972, the land was already owned by Simon, but the
tenancy relations remained in force. By virtue of this law, “tenant
farmers are deemed owners of the land they till, subject to the rules
and regulations to be hereafter promulgated.” Hence, respondent
Cruz is deemed owner of the tenanted land pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 27.

The transfer of ownership of land under PD 27 is only allowed in favor

of the bona fide tenant or tiller thereof. Here, the transfer executed by
Meny in favor of Petitioner Trinidad, not the tiller nor tenant of the
said agricultural land on 02 June 2000 is void as it violates PD 27.

The lease payments Respondent Cruz had been paying to Simon

and Trinidad are considered as payment for the amortization of the
subject landholding. It follows that in respect of land subjected to
Operation Land Transfer, the tenants-farmers became owners of the
land they tilled as of the effective date of Presidential Decree No. 27,
i.e., 21 October 1972.

Ejectment case filed by Trinidad against Respondent Cruz is invalid.

Respondent Cruz’s act of entering into mortgage contract is not within
the lessee’s prohibited acts enumerated on RA 3844, section 27. It is
not also within the obligations of the lessee to his landowner as
enumerated in section 26 of RA 3844.

Our Ruling

Trinidad’s has no right to dispossess Cruz

RA 3689 Sec. 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold

Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by
operation of law or, either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly.
The essential elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are: (1)
the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(2) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) there
is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee;
and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee.3

One of the elements require that the parties are the landowner and
the tenant or agricultural lessee. Land owner is a person, natural or
juridical, who, either as owner, lessee, usufructuary, or legal

3
Granada v. Bormaheco, Inc.,  G.R. No. 154481, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 259, 268
possessor, lets or grants to another the use or cultivation of his land
for a consideration in price certain (Emphasis supplied).

Here, petitioner Trinidad claims that she is the owner of the land
originally owned by deceased Maria Tinio. He alleges that she and
Meny were the legal heirs of Maria and the co-owners of the subject
property who eventually waived his rights over such by virtue of the
“Judicial Partition and Waiver of Right”. However, there was no
mention as to how they become the legal heirs of Maria. Based from
the facts, the property was transferred to Adela Tinio when Maria died
in 1959. Through Simon, who is the father of the petitioner herein,
Adela entered into agricultural leasehold contract on November 9,
1976. While it is true that Adela died a year before the contract was
executed, or in 1975, the contract is still valid contrary to the claim of
the petitioner. It can be presumed that since Simon was the overseer
of Adela, the contract was with the consent of Adela prior to the
actual execution of such contract.
Upon her death, the subject property was transferred to his brother
Simon. However, there was no proof that Simon is dead which may
grant right to Trinidad as the former’s legal heir, to acquire the subject
property. Since it cannot be gleaned as to how Trinidad became the
legal heir of Maria, the “Judicial Partition and Waiver of Rights”
allegedly executed by him and Meni is not valid for having no basis. It
is far-reaching how the subject property was acquired by Trinidad
considering that she was just the niece of Maria and Adela and his
father Simon is still alive.
Absence of one of the elements shall not establish the existence of
agricultural tenancy relationship. In other words, there is no tenancy
relationship between Trinidad and Cruz.

Mortgage of the property

Respondent Cruz mortgaged the tenanted land to Miranda while the
tenancy relationship subsist which was allegedly made without the
consent and knowledge of petitioner.
Section 7 of RA 3844 honors the right to security of tenure of lessee.
It provides that:
Sec. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon
the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the
landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The
agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his
 landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized
by the Court for causes herein provided.
Section 36 of the same law laid down the grounds for dispossession
of the tenant by the land holder, to wit:
Sec. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions -
Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future
surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the
enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his
dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment
that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon
recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be
suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled
to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average
of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five
preceding calendar years;
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any
of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the
provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous
event or force majeure;
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding
for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices
as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement
thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has
unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the
agricultural lessee;
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it
falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be
due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a
result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a
ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the
rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in
violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.
Assuming arguendo that there is an Agricultural Leasehold Relation
and granting that Trinidad is the rightful landowner in the said
contract, the action for Ejectment and Dispossession will still not
prosper.
As a rule, dispossession of a tenant in an agricultural land can only
be allowed for any of the grounds enumerated in the abovementioned
Section.
As supported by the case of Bernas v. CA4, "The grounds for
ejectment of an agricultural leasehold lessee are provided for by law.
The enumeration is exclusive and no other grounds can justify
termination of the lease". It further held in the case of Rodriguez v.
Salvador5 that "dispossession of agricultural tenants can only be
ordered by the Court for causes expressly provided under Sec. 36 of
R.A. 3844".
Moreover, respondent Cruz’s act of entering into mortgage contract is
not within the lessee’s prohibited acts enumerated on RA 3844,
section 27, to wit:
Section 27. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee - It shall be unlawful
for the agricultural lessee:
(1) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a
different agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an
economic family-size farm, without the knowledge and consent of the
agricultural lessor with whom he had entered first into household, if
the first landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the
members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its
cultivation; or
(2) To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however,
That in case of illness or temporary incapacity he may employ
laborers whose services on his landholding shall be on his account.
It is not also within the obligations of the lessee to his landowner as
enumerated in section 26 of RA 3844, to read:
Section 26. Obligations of the Lessee - It shall be the obligation of
the agricultural lessee:
(1) To cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other
improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and
perform all the work therein in accordance with proven farm
practices;
(2) To inform the agricultural lessor within a reasonable time of any
trespass committed by third persons upon the farm, without prejudice
to his direct action against the trespasser;

4
G.R. No. 85041, August 5, 1993
5
G.R. No. 171972, June 8, 2011
(3) To take reasonable care of the work animals and farm
implements delivered to him by the agricultural lessor and see that
they are not used for purposes other than those intended or used by
another without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor:
Provided, however, That if said work animals get lost or die, or said
farm implements get lost or are destroyed, through the negligence of
the agricultural lessee, he shall be held responsible and made
answerable therefor to the extent of the value of the work animals
and/or farm implements at the time of the loss, death or destruction;
(4) To keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work
season. In case of unjustified abandonment or neglect of his farm,
any or all of his expected produce may, upon order of the Court, be
forfeited in favor of the agricultural lessor to the extent of the damage
caused thereby;
(5) To notify the agricultural lessor at least three days before the date
of harvesting or, whenever applicable, of threshing; and
(6) To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due.
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, it was not the obligation of the
lessee, as per section 26 of RA 3844, to acquire the consent of the
lessor in mortgaging the tenanted land. As it was not within the
express obligation of the lessee, and in not doing so would not render
such as unlawful. Hence, the act of mortgaging does not extinguish
the right of Cruz to security of tenure.

The lease payments Respondent Cruz had been paying to Simon

and Trinidad are considered as payment for the amortization of
the subject landholding.

Presidential Decree No. 27 declared the "emancipation of tenants"

tilling agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. It stated
that:
xxxx
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of
the Philippines, by virtue of the powers in me vested by the
Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September
22, 1972 as amended do hereby decree and order the
emancipation of all tenant farmers as of this day, October 21,
1972; This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural
lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of
sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate
or not;
 The tenant-farmer, whether in land classified, as landed estate or
not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family size
farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if
irrigated;
In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than
seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or
will now cultivate it;
For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be
transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the
value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2 1/2)
times the average harvest of three normal crop years
immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;
The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6)
percentum per annum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15)
years [in] fifteen equal annual amortizations;
xxxxxxxxx
(Emphasis supplied)

It is also important to adduce Department Circular No. 8, dated 1 April

1975, issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27 and which constitutes contemporaneous
administrative construction of Presidential Decrees Nos. 27 and 57.
Department Circular No. 8 stated that:

xxxxxxxxx
3. Tenant-farmers are deemed owners of the land they till as of
October 21, 1972, subject to the rules and regulations to be
hereafter promulgated. On lands already covered by Operation
Land Transfer, the leasehold system shall be provisionally
maintained and the lease rentals paid by the tenant-farmers to
the landowner [shall] be credited as amortization payments.
Payment of rentals shall be stopped when the Land Bank shall
have paid the cost of land. On lands not yet covered by
Operation Land Transfer, leasehold shall continue to govern the
relationship between the landowner and his tenant-tillers.
(Emphasis supplied)

Such ownership of Respondent Cruz as bona fide tenant was

maintained by Executive Order 228, where it declared full ownership
to the tenant-beneficiary, which it firmly states in Sec. 2, last
paragraph:
Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer beneficiary
after October 21, 1972, shall be considered as advance payment
for the land. In the event of dispute with the land owner regarding
the amount of lease rental paid by the farmer beneficiary, the
Department of Agrarian Reform and the Barangay Committee on
Land Production concerned shall resolve the dispute within thirty
 (30) days from its submission pursuant to Department of
Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973,
and other pertinent issuances. In the event a party questions in
court the resolution of the dispute, the landowner's compensation
claim shall still be processed for payment and the proceeds shall
be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the
resolution of the dispute before the court.
Reading the foregoing provisions together, under Presidential Decree
No. 27, Cruz is deemed owner of the tenanted land, and the lease
rental he had been paying to Simon and Trinidad are considered
payment for the amortization of the subject landholding. Hence, not a
valid ground for dispossession.

It is also reiterated in the case of Castillo vs. Orciga6, that the lease
payments or lease rentals shall then be considered as payment for
the amortization made by the tenant-farmer.

Citing Rule 131,Section 2 paragraph b, petitioner’s contention that

Cruz is estopped from asserting the ownership of Trinidad because of
the positive act made by him does not hold water, to wit:
“Section 2. Conclusive presumptions. — The following are instances
of conclusive presumptions:
xxx

(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord
at the time of commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant
between them. (3a)”

However, this section contemplates that the landlord is the rightful

owner of the subject landholding as required by the elements of the
tenancy relationship. As can be recalled from the foregoing, Trinidad
is not the lawful landowner nor the legal possessor of the subject
property.

Furthermore, based on Section 37 of R.A 3844, the burden of proof to

show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an
agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor. Assuming
arguendo that Trinidad is indeed the agricultural lessor, she failed to
prove that there is a valid and lawful cause to eject Cruz as a tenant
to the subject landholding.

6
GR No. 153850 August 31, 2006
In sum, since Trinidad failed to prove how she rightfully acquired the
property, she cannot be considered a landowner nor a legal
possessor. Hence, the action for Ejectment and Dispossession of
Leasehold Tenant with Collection of Back Rentals will not be allowed
by this Court to prosper.

WHEREFORE, the action for Ejectment and Dispossession of

Leasehold Tenant with Collection of Back Rentals is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.