TRINIDAD TINIO, Petitioner,

- versus -
JUAN CRUZ AND PEDRO MIRANDA, Respondents.

RESPONDENT SUMMARY

The Respondents seek the dismissal of the action and that he be

awarded damages, attorney’s fees, and the cost of the suit.

ISSUES
1. Petitioner Trinidad is NOT the lawful heir and owner of the subject landholding.

2. Respondent Cruz is deemed the owner of the tenanted land pursuant to

Presidential Decree No. 27, and the lease rentals he had been paying to Simon and
Trinidad are considered as payment for the amortization of the subject landholding.

3. The action for ejectment filed by Trinidad is NOT tenable.

ARGUMENTS

I. Petitioner Trinidad is not the lawful heir and owner of the subject
landholding.

The records show that the subject land was registered in the name of Maria
Tinio. Maria died in 1954 leaving her one sister, Adela and one brother,
Simon as her legal heirs. In 1975, Adela died. The land owned by Adela was
taken care of under the custody of Simon. Tenancy relationship between
Adela and respondent Cruz commenced after a year of her death, specifically
on 09 November 1976, through the former’s overseer Simon, so that when
said property was eventually transferred to Simon, being the only heir of
Adela, said tenancy relationship already subsisted, and were governed by the
provisions of PD No. 27 as well as the LOI No. 474. It must be noted that
during these years, the land was still registered under the name of Maria and
no evidence was presented that the title to the land was transferred to either
Adela or Simon. Thus, 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.”
As to the ownership of Petitioner Trinidad and Meny, no sufficient
evidence is presented by the Petitioner on how they inherited the land
from Maria. It must be noted that Petitioner Trinidad is the daughter of
Simon and is only considered as the grand niece of Maria. Maria’s legal
heirs remains to be her sister, Adela and brother, Simon. Moreover, there
 is also no evidence adduced by the petitioner as to the death of her father
that would trigger the transfer of the property from the latter to her.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the property was indeed
transferred to Petitioner Trinidad, still she is subject to respect the tenancy
relationship and the vested right of Respondent Cruz pursuant to the
provisions of P.D. No. 27.

II. Respondent Cruz is deemed owner of the tenanted land pursuant to

Presidential Decree No. 27.

The undisputed facts recognized that Respondent Cruz is the tenant of land
covered by TCT No. T-3994, an agricultural land with an area of 3.7
hectares and was subject to the provisions of PD 27. Under the said
presidential decree, tenant-farmer are deemed owner of the land they till,
portion constituting of family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated
(par. 6, PD 27).
The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of PD
No. 27 on October 21, 1972, Respondent Cruz was deemed owner of the
land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the
bondage of the soil. As such he gained the rights to possess, cultivate and
enjoy the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular
property were granted by the government to him and to no other. To
insure his continued possession and enjoyment of the property, he could
not, under the law, make any valid form of transfer except to the
government or by hereditary succession, to his successors.
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. As
mentioned further under Sec. 22 of R.A 6657, the lands shall be distributed
to landless residents such as “x x x a. agricultural lessees and share tenants
x x x”. Being a leasehold tenant thereat, it means that Cruz is the one who is
indeed qualified to become a beneficiary of P.D. 27. It is still noteworthy to
mention that, as provided under Sec. 56 of R.A 1199 or “The Agricultural
Tenancy Act”, it states that, “In the interpretation and enforcement of this
Act and other laws as well as of the stipulations between the landholder
and the tenant, the courts and administrative officials shall solve all grave
doubts in favor of the tenant.”
III. 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:
 xxx xxx xxx

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;
xxx xxx xxx

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:

xxx xxx xxx

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)

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. Pending full
payment of the cost of the land to the old landowner by the Land Bank of the
Philippines, the leasehold system was "provisionally maintained" but the "lease
rentals" paid by the tenants-farmers prior to such full payment by the Land
Bank to the old landowner, would be credited no longer as rentals but rather as
"amortization payments" of the price of the land, the un-amortized portion
being payable by the Land Bank. In respect of lands brought within the
coverage of Operation Land Transfer, the leasehold system was legally and
effectively terminated immediately on 21 October 1972 (notwithstanding the
curious statement in Department Circular No. 8 that it was "provisionally
maintained"). It was in respect of lands not yet subjected to the terms and
effects of Operation Land Transfer that the leasehold system did continue to
govern the relationship between the "landowner and his tenant-tillers".

IV. Ejectment case filed by Trinidad against Respondent Cruz is invalid.

Assuming arguendo that there still an Agricultural Leasehold Relation and

granting that Trinidad is the rightful landowner in the said contract, an
action for ejectment is still untenable. 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,
In the case at bar, Juan Cruz subjected as collateral from loan the produce
of the farm, as evinced by the mortgage contract entitled, “Hiniram na
Salapi na may Pananagot na Pagsasaka” and not the actual land he is
cultivating. This act do not fall within the meaning of the unlawful acts of
lessee provided in the aforecited law. Moreover, it was not the obligation of
lessee, as per section 26 of RA 3844, to acquire the consent of the lessor in
doing the said acts. As it was not within the express obligation of the lessee,
and in not doing so would not render such as unlawful.
To tackle the action for dispossession due to failure of non-payment of
lease rental, assuming that they have leasehold relation, we reiterate
sections 36, 37 and 38 of RA 3844, to wit:

Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions –

XXX XXX XXX

(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
XXX XXXXXX

Section 37. Burden of Proof - 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.

Section 38. Statute of Limitations - An action to enforce any cause of

action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within
three years after such cause of action accrued.