7/11/2015

PhilippineLawCases:Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556,No.L26339,December14,1979PhilippineLawCases

Philippine Law Cases

home

Posts(RSS)

Comments(RSS)

swiftcopy

PrepareforBARexams

SearchCase
Friday,April13,2012

Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94
SCRA556,No.L26339,December14,
1979
PostedbyAlchemyBusinessCenterandMarketingConsultancyat1:01
AMLabels:1979,94SCRA556,CivilLawReview,December14,No.L
26339,Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals

FREEaccesstoSCRAReadings
SCRAreadingsareavailableatSwiftCopy,
AlchemyBusinessCenter
TextSCRAon(SUBJECT)/(NAME)/(EMAIL
ADD)andsendto09175638919.
Ex.SCRAonREMEDIALLAW/JUAN
RAMIREZ/juanramirez@gmail.com

Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556,No.L26339,
December14,1979

Comm120
Pamintuanv.CA,94SCRA556,G.R.No.113605November27,1998

7ReasonsonWhy
Study@Alchemy

ROMULOROVILLOS,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,FOURTHDIVISION,THEHONORABLERICARDOT.
LINSANGAN, PRESIDING JUDGE IN BRANCH 38 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
NUEVA ECIJA, SAN JOSE CITY, AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT MODESTO OBISPO,
respondents.

ROMERO,J.:
Petitioner,undauntedbythistwoprevioussetbacks,seeksthereversalofthedecisionof
theCourtofAppealsdatedJanuary26,19941inCAG.R.No.31771affirmingthedecision
2oftheRegionalTrialCourt,Branch38ofSanJoseCity,inCivilCaseNo.C41whichruled
thathewasnotatenantoftheprivaterespondent,butwasinfactamerefarmlaborer
notentitledtotheactualpossessionofthelandinquestion.
Sometime in 1971, petitioner's predecessor started tilling and cultivating a portion of
private respondent's land situated in Carrangalan, Nueva Ecija under a "sharecrop"
agreement.OnDecember30,1979,petitionerandtheprivaterespondententeredintoa
contract 3 which stipulated that the former was to be contracted as a farm laborer or
helperresponsibleforthecultivationoftwo(2)hectaresofthefourhectareland.
SwiftCopyatAlchemy.
PoweredbyBlogger.

AlchemyStudyHub

For the next five years, both parties complied with the provisions of their agreement.
However, to the dismay of the private respondent, starting January 1984, petitioner no
longercultivatedthelandinquestioninhiscapacityasafarmlaborerbutastenant,with
thecorrespondingrighttoexcludetheprivaterespondentfromtheland.Toprotecthis
interest, private respondent demanded from the petitioner to desist from further
cultivationofthesaidland.Thesedemandsprovedfutileaspetitionercontinuedwithhis
dailyundertakings,unmindfulofprivaterespondent'sprotestations.
Exasperated,privaterespondent,onApril9,1984,filedacomplaintagainstthepetitioner
forRecoveryofPossessionwithDamageswithMotionforIssuanceofWritofPreliminary
Injunction.InhisAnswer,petitionermaintainedthatonOctober6,1981,hewasgranted
a Certificate of Land Transfer No. 0065683 by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform
pursuanttoPresidentialDecreeNo.27,hence,convertinghisstatusfromafarmlaborer
tothatofalegitimatetenantoftheprivaterespondent.
OnFebruary20,1991,thetrialcourtrendereditsdecisionfindingthatpetitionerwasnot
a tenant but a mere farm helper or laborer of the private respondent. The trial court
expoundeditspositioninthiswise.
Defendant's contention that he is a tenant of plaintiff (as he tried to picture out in the
TenurialSurvey,Exh.8theinformationofwhichhepersonallysuppliedtoEleanorQuinto
onJune14,1977thatgaverisetotheissuanceoftheCLTdatedOctober6,1981,Exh.1,
whichCLTwas,however,cancelledonAugust12,1988,Exh.10,byDirectorAligioPacis
because the subject land is never tenanted, Exh. 10B), cannot be sustained on the
strength and wisdom of the KASUNDUAN, Exh. A, executed on December 30, 1979, not
only because of the reciprocal stipulations eloquently expressed therein which must be
given force and effect (National Rice and Corn Administration vs. Court of Appeals, 91
SCRA437),butalsobecauseofthewellsettledrulethatpublicdocumentsinvestedwith
thesolemnitiesofthelawcannotbesetasideonlightandflimsyevidence.(Mercadorvs.
Ang, CAG.R. No. 3940R, March 31, 1951). The Kasunduan being a bilateral contract, it
necessarilyfollowsthattheintentionofthepartiesatthetimeoftheexecutionthereof
must prevail (Reyes vs. Sierna, 93 SCRA 472), in much the same way that its validity be
maintained even though one of the parties entered into it against his own wish and

http://philippinelawcases.blogspot.com/2012/04/pamintuanvscourtofappeals94scra.html

SpecialRatesforLawStudents

CONTACTUS
AlchemyBusinessCenter
2/FFBRBldg.,
317KatipunanAve.,
LoyolaHts.,QuezonCity,Phils.
+639175638919
+6326231001
+6325088561

1/4

7/11/2015

PhilippineLawCases:Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556,No.L26339,December14,1979PhilippineLawCases
desires,orevenagainsthisbetterjudgment(Lagunsodvs.Vda.deGuzman,92SCRA476).
Infine,defendant'sadmissionofbeingafourthyearinhighschool,andhavingthoroughly
read the contract, Exh. A, written out in a language he understood very well before he
affixed his signature thereto, and the same being a notarial document guaranteed by
public attestation in accordance with law where its provisions are clear and not forged,
their contents must be upheld (Sarayba vs. Reyes, CAG.R. No. 4008R, Sept. 26, 1950;
NavoadeRamosvs.YuCochangco,CAG.R.No.25R,July9,1947).Thedefendanthaving
breached the contract, plaintiff is deserving to recover actual damages. (Pamintuan vs.
CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556).

Alchemy Business

Sign in

View larger map

The abovequoted ruling of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its
decisiondatedJanuary26,1994whichsubstantiallyadoptedthetrialcourt'sfinding,thus:
Throughtheagreementembodiedinthe"KASUNDUAN",thecontentionofappellantthat
he is a tenant should be dismissed as a tenancy relationship is determined not by the
nature of the work involved but by the intention of the parties (Gelos vs. Court of
Appeals,208SCRA608).
Appellant also anchors his claim on the land on the fact that he is the grantee of a
CertificateofLandTransfercoveringthelandinquestion.
The Certificate of Land Transfer was, however, subsequently cancelled on August 12,
1988preciselyonthegroundthatthelandinquestionislessthanseven(7)hectaresthus
notcoveredbytheprovisionsofP.D.No.27.
Althoughthelawlooksuponthelowlywithfavor,thesamecannotbeusedasashieldto
perpetrate an injustice. The appellee herein cannot be said to belong to the landed
gentry. As in fact the appellee's only land holding is the four (4) hectares of riceland of
whichhalfisbeingunjustlyclaimedbyappellant.

Map data 2015 Google

ViewLargerMap

BAREXAMRESULTS

Notsatisfiedwiththedecision,petitionerisnowbeforethisCourtassailingtheappellate
court's pronouncement. Stripped of inconsequential facts, the thrust of the petition is
thatpetitionershouldhavebeenrecognizedasanagriculturallesseeofthelandandthus
entitledtothesecurityoftenureunderexistingagrarianlaws.
On the outset, it should be borne in mind that whether the petitioner was indeed a
tenant or laborer is a question of fact. 4 In this regard, jurisprudence has provided the
followingrequisitesfortenancyrelationship:(1)thepartiesarethelandownersandthe
tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is
agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of
harvest.5
Withthesepreceptsasguidelines,weareconstrainedtoreversethefindingsofboththe
appellatecourtandthetrialcourt.

ReleasedMarch18,2014

First,petitionerwasinactualpossessionofthelandandresidedinafarmhousethereon
asafarmtenantwouldnormallydo.InCruzv.CourtofAppeals,6westated:
Finally, it is also undisputed that respondent lives on a hut erected on the landholding.
This fully supports the appellate court's conclusion, since only tenants are entitled to a
homelotwherehecanbuildhishousethereonasanincidenttohisrightasatenant.
Second, the land was devoted to the production of palay and other related products.
Third,therewastheelementofconsent,forasearlyas1971,privaterespondenthadnot
instituted an action against the petitioner or his predecessor. In fact, he even allowed
themandacertainConradoVergaratomanageandtilltheland.Fourth,themanagement
ofthelandwasforthesolepurposeofproducingriceorpalay.Fifth,cultivationandfarm
work were personally done by the petitioner and his predecessor and Sixth, petitioner
shared the harvest of the land under a "sharecrop" system. In Hernandez v. IAC, 7 we
ruledthatwhenanindividualcultivatesthelandanddidnotreceivesalariesbutashare
of the produce, the relationship is one of tenancy and not employment. Moreover, if
private respondent's land was indeed nontenanted, he should have obtained a
certificationofnontenancyfromthethenMinistryofAgrarianReform.8
Fromtheforegoing,theineluctableconclusiondrawnisthatatenancyrelationshipexists
betweentheparties.
That having been said, it must be pointed out that the land in question is covered by
PresidentialDecreeNo.27,which,incidentallyhasnotyetbeenrepealedbyRepublicAct
No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. 9 Under the said law,
tenantfarmersofriceandcornlandsweredeemedownersofthelandtheytill.10This
policyisintendedtobegiveneffectbythefollowingprovisionofthelaw.
The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be DEEMED
OWNERofaportionconstitutingafamilysizefarmoffive(5)hectaresifnotirrigatedand
three(3)hectaresifirrigated.11
However,itmustbestressedthatsincethelandinquestionisonlyfour(4)hectares,then
thesamecannotbesubjecttotheOperationLandTransfer(OLT)programofP.D.No.27.
Thiswastomitigatetheimpactofthedecreeonsmalllandowners.12Consequently,no
transferofownershipcantakeplace.
Notwithstandingthenontransferofownershipofthelandholding,itbearsstressingthat
whenthelandissevenhectaresandbelow,thesameisstillcoveredbyP.D.No.27under
its Operation Land Leasehold (OL) program. This means that the landowners and the

http://philippinelawcases.blogspot.com/2012/04/pamintuanvscourtofappeals94scra.html

2/4

7/11/2015

PhilippineLawCases:Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556,No.L26339,December14,1979PhilippineLawCases
tenants are placed in a leasehold relationship as of October 21, 1972, 13 under an
agricultural leasehold agreement. 14 It is worth mentioning that on two occasions, we
have already upheld the validity of this "automatic conversion" provision, from
agriculturalsharetenancytoagriculturalleasehold,underourlandreformlaws.15Thus,
whileownersofriceandcornlandsseven(7)hectaresorlessarenotcoveredbytheland
transfer programs of P.D. No. 27, however, when there are tenants on these lands, the
arrangementimmediatelyshiftstoaleaseholdrelationship.16
Another notable development is the fact that to give more force to the policy of
automaticconversionofsharetenancytotheleaseholdsystem,PresidentialDecreeNo.
142517wasenactedin1978.Thislawcoverstenantfarmersinriceand/orcornlandsnot
includedinP.D.No.2718landtransferprogram.
Moreover,underSection12ofR.A.6657,asimplementedbytheDepartmentofAgrarian
Reform,19alltenantedagriculturallandsretainedunderP.D.No.27shallautomatically
be converted into agricultural leasehold as of June 15, 1988. However, with respect to
tenanted rice and corn lands, as in this case, the leasehold relationship shall start on
November10,1971.20
Also, private respondent cannot take comfort from the fact that petitioner had already
surrenderedtheland,andtherefore,whatevertenancyrelationshipexistedbetweenthe
parties was already severed. In this connection, it is worthwhile noting that under the
rules of the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform, (now Department of Agrarian Reform)
surrender or alleged abandonment of the land by the tenant does not automatically
terminatethetenancyrelationship.Theremustbeapropercourtdeclarationofsuchfact.
21
Havingsettledtheproperagriculturalrelationshipoftheparties,privaterespondentstill
contendsthatpetitionerexpresslyagreedtobehiredasafarmlaborerunderthecontract
they executed on December 30, 1979. As such, the contract must be respected as a
manifestationoftheintentionofthecontractingparties.22
Private respondent's argument is unacceptable. Obviously, the purported contract
violatestheprovisionsofthelawprovidingfor"automaticconversion"fromagricultural
tenancy to agricultural leasehold. Thus, it is readily perceivable that it was a void or
inexistent contract from the inception. 23 The fact that both parties complied with the
provisions of the contract is immaterial. It is a stipulation that is contrary to law and
public policy; 24 hence, it cannot be cured by ratification or even compliance by the
partiestothecontract.25
Havingreachedtheaboveconclusions,otherincidentalissuesraisedbythepetitionerno
longerneedtobepassedupon.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of
the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 31771 dated January 26, 1994 is hereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,Kapunan,PurisimaandPardo,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1 Penned by Justice Corona IbaySomera and concurred in by Justice Nathanael P. de
PanoJr.andJusticeAsaaliS.Isnani;Rollo,pp.2231.
2PennedbyJudgeRicardoT.Linsangan;Rollo,pp.3441.
3Thecontractisentitled"Kasunduan."
4Oardev.CourtofAppeals,280SCRA258(1997).
5 Nisnisan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126425, August 12, 1998; Sintos v. Court of
Appeals,246SCRA223(1995).
6129SCRA223(1984).
7189SCRA758(1990).
8MinistryofAgrarianReformMemorandumdatedMay8,1979.
9Sec.75ofRepublicActNo.6657.
10ExecutiveOrderNo.228,July17,1987;Quibanv.Batulid,189SCRA107(1990);Locsin
v.Valenzuela,194SCRA194(1991).
11PresidentialDecreeNo.27,thirdparagraph,Torresv.Ventura,187SCRA96(1990).
12CircularNo.14,MinistryofJusticedatedMarch15,1979.
13MinistryofAgrarianReformCircularNo.2A,June18,1973.
14MinistryofAgrarianReformMemorandumCircular480asamendedbyMemorandum
CircularNo.10,Seriesof1985.
15Davidv.CourtofAppeals,161SCRA114(1988);Dayritv.CourtofAppeals,163SCRA

http://philippinelawcases.blogspot.com/2012/04/pamintuanvscourtofappeals94scra.html

3/4

7/11/2015

PhilippineLawCases:Pamintuanvs.CourtofAppeals,94SCRA556,No.L26339,December14,1979PhilippineLawCases
256(1988).
16MinistryofAgrarianReformCircularNo.5,March5,1973.
17 Amending Presidential Decree No. 1490 by Strengthening the Prohibition Against
AgriculturalShareTenancyandProvidingPenaltiesForViolationThereof,June10,1978.
18Id.,Section1.
19 Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 1989 "Rules and Procedure Governing
AgriculturalLeaseholdandtheDeterminationofLeaseRentalforTenantedLand.
20Id.,par.4.
21MemorandumCircularNo.10Seriesof1983.
22Memorandum,Rollo,pp.153154.
23Art.1409,CivilCode.
24Art.1306,CivilCode.
25Tolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.IV,1991,pp.632633.
Youmightalsolike:

You'lldefinitely
'LOVEIT
@Alchemy

AlchemyTurns2
Thanks2You!

GetSerious
Studyingwith
UNLIMITED
brewedCOFFEEat
...
Linkwithin

0comments:

PostaComment

Enteryourcomment...

Commentas:

Publish

NewerPost

GoogleAccount

Preview

Home OlderPost

http://philippinelawcases.blogspot.com/2012/04/pamintuanvscourtofappeals94scra.html

4/4