REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN

REFORM DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY

RE: ACTION FOR EJECTMENT AND

DISPOSSESSION OF LEASEHOLD
TENANT WITH COLLECTION OF
BACK RENTALS
DAR Case No. 201
TRINIDAD TINIO,
Petitioner,

- versus -

JUAN CRUZ AND PEDRO MIRANDA,

Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

POSITION PAPER

The Respondents, through the undersigned counsels, and unto this

Honorable Office, most respectfully submit this Position Paper as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

This case is an action for ejectment and dispossession of leasehold tenant with
collection of back rentals filed against the Respondents involving an agricultural land
registered under the name of Maria Tinio, covered by TCT No. T-3994.

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

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

The Respondent humbly state and take the position that competent and
sufficient pieces of evidence were adduced to prove and support their claims.

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner, Trinidad Tinio 1 is of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and a

resident of Block 1 Lot 2, Brgy. Talon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and may be
served with legal documents and notices thereto.

1 Trinidad for brevity

 2. Respondents, Juan Cruz2 has an address located at Block 11, Lot 22, Brgy.
Talon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and respondent Pedro Miranda 3 residing at
Hacienda Penduko, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, where all legal documents and
notices issued by this Honorable Office may be served.

THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. Maria Tinio4 owned an agricultural land with an area of 7.0187 hectares

located in Barangay Talon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-3994.5
2. Maria died6 in 1959 and her estate was automatically transferred to her sister
Adela Tinio.7
3. In 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree 278 took effect.
4. Adela died in 1975.9
5. Respondent Cruz and Adela (sister and successor of the registered owner
Maria) through the latter’s overseer Simon Tinio 10 (brother of Maria)
executed on 09 November 1976 the Agricultural Leasehold Contract, 11 over
the subject landholding with an area of 3.70 hectares, with an agreed lease
rental of thirty (30) cavans for dry season and thirty five (35) cavans for wet
season.
6. The Agricultural Leasehold Contract is duly registered with the Municipal
Treasurer as well as the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer.
7. On 21 October 1976, Letter Instruction No. 474 took effect placing under
Operation Land Transfer tenanted rice/corn lands seven hectares or less in
area under certain conditions.
8. Petitioner Trinidad and Meny inherited from the deceased registered owner
Maria the subject landholding.
9. On 02 June 2000, a “Judicial Partition and Waiver of Right,” was executed
by Meny, waiving all her rights and interest on the subject land in favor of
Trinidad.
10. The subject landholding is part and parcel of the retention area of Trinidad
which was duly approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional
Director through Order issued on 03 June 2002.12
11. Respondent Cruz mortgaged his tenanted area to co-respondent Miranda on
two occasions, particularly, on 13 June 2005 for the mortgage amount of Six
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php600,000.00), as evidenced by the “Hiraman na
13
Salapi na may Panagot na Pagsasaka” and on 11 June 2009 for the mortgage

2 Cruz for brevity

3 Pedro for brevity
4 Maria for brevity
5 Affixed as Annex A is the copy of TCT No. T-3994
6 Affixed as Annex B is the copy of the Death Certificate of Maria Tinio
7 Adela for brevity
8 Otherwise known as Tenant’s Emancipation Decree
9 Affixed as Annex C is the copy of the Death Certificate of Adela Tinio
10 Simon for brevity
11 Affixed as Annex D is the copy of the Agricultural Leasehold Contract
12 Affixed as Annex D DAR Order issued on 03 June 2002
13 Affixed as Annex E Hiraman na Salapi na may Panagot na Pagsasaka dated 13 June 2005
 amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php1,200,00.00) as
evidenced by the “Hiraman na Salapi na may Panagot na Pagsasaka.”14
12.Petitioner Trinidad filed this instant case for ejectment and dispossession of
leasehold tenant with collection of back rentals against Respondent Cruz on
the ground that Respondent mortgaged his tenanted area without the
former’s knowledge and consent and that he failed to pay the agricultural
leasehold rental for seven harvest seasons or three and a half years.

ISSUES

The Honorable Office is called upon to resolve the following issues:

i) Whether or not Petitioner Trinidad is the lawful heir and owner of the
subject landholding.

ii) Whether or not Respondent Cruz is deemed 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.

iii) Whether or not the action for ejectment filed by Trinidad is tenable.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

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

In determining, once and for all, the rights of the parties with respect to the
subject property, it is necessary to trace the transfer of ownership from the
original owner, Maria Tinio, to Adela Tinio and, eventually, to petitioner,
vis-à-vis private respondent’s rights of tenancy.

The records show that the subject land was a part of the 7.0187 hectares of
agricultural land located in Barangay Talon, San Isidro, Nueva Ecija and 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.

14 Affixed as Annex F Hiraman na Salapi na may Panagot na Pagsasaka dated 11 June 2009
 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.”15

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.

By far, one of the most far-reaching governmental reforms, acclaimed both

here and abroad, is Presidential Decree No. 27 issued on October 21, 1972,
decreeing the emancipation of the tenants from the bondage of the soil and
transferring the ownership of the land they till. Its validity was assumed in
16 17
Chavez v. Zobel, and upheld in Gonzales v. Estrella. The Constitution
explicitly provides: The State shall formulate and implement an agrarian reform
program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil
18
and achieving the goals enunciated in this Constitution. The Constitution is
worded in the future tense; the State is to formulate and implement a vitally
needed program. It was signed on November 30, 1972. It is worth recalling that
a month and nine days earlier, to be exact, on October 21, 1972, the epochal
Presidential Decree No. 27 was issued by President Marcos.
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

15 207 SCRA 652 [1992].

16 G.R. No. L-28609 January 17, 1974.
17 G. R. No. L-35739, July 2, 1979, 91 SCRA 294.
18 Article XIV, Sec. 12, par. I of the Constitution.
 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.19
As applied by the court in the case of Heirs of Batongbacal vs. CA:20
“In other words, transfer of ownership over tenanted rice and/or corn
lands after October 21, 1972 is allowed only in favor of the actual
tenant-tillers thereon. Hence, the Judicial Partition and Waiver of
Rights executed by Meny on 02 June 2000 in favor of petitioner was
in violation of the provision of P.D. 27 and its implementing
guidelines, and must thus be declared null and void.”
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

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;

19 Torres vs. Ventura, 187 SCRA 96

20 GR No. 125063 September 24, 2002
 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;
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied)

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)

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, we observe that under Presidential
Decree No. 27, the basic statute, the tenant-farmer became owner of a family-
size farm of five (5) hectares or, if the land was irrigated, three (3) hectares, and
that the tenant-owner had to pay for the cost of the land within fifteen (15)
years by paying fifteen (15) equal annual amortization payments. Thus, it
appears clear that ownership over lands (like land under TCT No. T-3994)
subjected to Operation Land Transfer moved from the registered owner (the old
landowner) to the tenants (the new landowners). The fifteen (15) annual
amortizations to be paid by the tenants-owners were intended to replace the
landholdings which the old landowners gave up in favor of the new
21
landowners, the tenants-owners. Nevertheless, the period of paying the cost
of land has been amended by Sec. 6 of E.O. 228, which mandates that the
period shall be extended to twenty (20) years equal annual amortization.

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".

21 Presidential Decree No. 27 apparently assumed that the new owners (the tenants) would pay directly to the
old landowner. The Land Bank later assumed the task of financing land reform by paying the old owners and
reimbursing itself by collecting from the tenant-owners. See Presidential Decree No. 251, dated 21 July 1973.
 It is also reiterated in the case of Castillo vs. Orciga22, that the lease
payments or lease rentals shall then be considered as payment for the
amortization made by the tenant-farmer.

The exemption of the old landowner from the capital gains tax on the
amortization payments made to him by the tenants-purchasers, under
Presidential Decree No. 57, underscores the fact, referred to above, that
ownership or dominion over the land moved immediately from landowner to
tenant-farmer, rather than upon completion of payment of the price of the
land. In general, capital gains are realized only when the owner disposes of
his property.23

Here, the lot under TCT No. T3994 having been declared part of the land
reform area and subjected to Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D No. 27,
the payments made on and after 21 October 1972 by the private respondent
tenants-farmers constituted amortization payments on the cost of the land that
they were required to pay under Presidential Decree No. 27. These payments,
therefore, legally pertain to petitioners, the former landowners as part of the
compensation for the dominion over land of which they were deprived by
operation of Presidential Decree No. 27. Those payments cannot be
characterized as rentals. And since payment has been religiously made from 09
November 1976, and only stopped for the past three and a half years, it can be
concluded that full payment has been already delivered by Respondent Cruz
and the corresponding emancipation patent should be granted to him.

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, 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

22 GR No. 153850 August 31, 2006

23 G.R. No. L-51333, February 19, 1991
 (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;

(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.

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.

And in the case of Sta. Ana vs. Carpo24 the SC said that:
“The agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease rentals must be
willful and deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of the land
that he tills. And Section 37 of RA3844 provides that: 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. In the current
case, the Petitioners failed to show that the Respondents deliberately
and willfully failed to pay the lease rentals. The Petitioners offered no
concrete proof to provide for the ejectment of the agricultural lessee.“

Having all said, it cannot be a ground for an ejectment and dispossession case to
prosper.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto this

Honorable Office that a judgement be rendered in favor of petitioners:
1. Declaring the Petitioner Trinidad as having no personality to file a the
herein case as the latter is not the landowner of the property.

24 G.R No. 164340 November 28, 2008

2. Declaring Respondent Cruz as the deemed 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. Other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Dasmariñas, Cavite, Philippines this 11th day of November 2018.

FUTURE-ATTY. DANA TUMAQUE

Counsel for the Petitioners
#214 FGQ Bldg. Dasmariñas, Cavite
Roll No.: 67890
P.T.R. No. 101112, 05/06/2017, Cavite
I.B.P. No. 2222, Cavite Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-000222 07/08/2017

FUTURE-ATTY. DEEBEE
BOMBEZA Counsel for the Respondents
#214 FGQ Bldg. Dasmariñas, Cavite
Roll No.: 12345
P.T.R. No. 678910, 01/02/2017, Cavite
I.B.P. No. 1111, Cavite Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-000111 03/04/2017

FUTURE-ATTY. RONA CADORNA

Counsel for the Petitioners
#214 FGQ Bldg. Dasmariñas, Cavite
Roll No.: 11123
P.T.R. No. 141516, 09/10/2017, Cavite
I.B.P. No. 3333, Cavite Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-000333 11/12/2017

FUTURE-ATTY. DENMARK BOCALAN

Counsel for the Petitioners
#214 FGQ Bldg. Dasmariñas, Cavite
Roll No.: 11123
P.T.R. No. 141516, 09/10/2017, Cavite
I.B.P. No. 3333, Cavite Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-000333 11/12/2017
FUTURE-ATTY. NIX LUBRIO
Counsel for the Petitioners
#214 FGQ Bldg. Dasmariñas, Cavite
Roll No.: 11123
P.T.R. No. 141516, 09/10/2017, Cavite
I.B.P. No. 3333, Cavite Chapter
M.C.L.E. Compliance No. IV-000333 11/12/2017