HIDALGO vs HIDALGO

No. L-25326; 29 May 1970 - No. L-25327; 29 May 1970

IGMIDIO HIDALGO and MARTINA ROSALES v POLICARPIO HIDALGO, SERGIO DIMAANO, MARIA ARDE, SATURNINO HIDALGO, etc
Petitioner Respondents
HILARIO AGUILA and ADELA HIDALGO v POLICARPIO HIDALGO, SERGIO DIMAANO, MARIA ARDE, SATURNINO HIDALGO, etc
Petitioner Respondents
Respondent Policarpio was the owner of the 22,876 sqm and 7638 swm agricultural parcels of land
situated in Batangas before it was sold to his private co-respondents
L-25326 L-25327
Policarpio sol the 22,876 sqm land, with 2 other parcels of Policarpio sold the 7,638 sqm land
land for P4k. Petitioner spouses Hidalgo and Rosales for P750 and Petitioner spouses Guila
alleged that the parcel worked by them as tenants is fairly and Hidalgo, as tenants thereof, seek
worth P1500 and seek by way of redemption the execution redemption of deed of sale in their
of deed of sale for same amount by respondents in their favor for the same amount.
favor.
- Petitioner tenants have for several years been working on the lands as share tenants.
FACTS:

- No 90-day notice of intention to sell the lands for exercise of right of pre-emption prescribed
by Sec 11 of RA 3844 was given.
- Deed of sale executed and registered by Register of Deeds in Batangas without affidavit
required by Sec 13 of Land Reform Code.
Agrarian Court Dismissed the petitions for redemption.
Focused on the issue W/N right of redemption granted by Sec 12 of RA 3844 is applicable
to share tenants.
No because it is available to leasehold tenants only. The systems of agricultural tenancy
recognized in this jurisdiction are share tenancy and leasehold tenancy. A share tenant is
altogether different from a leasehold tenant and their respective rights and obligations are
not co-extensive or co-equal.
ISSUE: W/N Right of Redemption granted by Sec 12 of RA3844 applies to share tenants
HELD: Yes. Petitions to redeem landholdings are granted.
The very essence of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is the abolition of agricultural share tenancy as
proclaimed in its title.
o Section 4 of the Code expressly-outlaws agricultural share tenancy as "contrary to public policy."
o Section 2 of the Code expressly declares it to be the policy of the State to "establish owner
cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a
consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development; to achieve a dignified
existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices; and to
make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of
strength in our democratic society."
The Land Reform Code forges by operation of law the farmer's pre-emptive right to buy the land he
cultivates under section 11 of the Code as well as the right to redeem the land, if sold to a third person
without his knowledge, under section 12 of the Code. This is an essential and indispensable mandate of
RULING:

the Code to implement the State's policy of establishing ownership-cultivatorship and to achieve a
dignified and self- reliant existence for the small farmers that would make them a pillar of strength of
our Republic. Aside from expropriation by the Land Authority of private agricultural land for resale in
economic family-size farm units "to bona fide tenants, occupants and qualified farmers," the purchase
by farmers of the lands cultivated by them, when the owner decides to sell the samethrough the
rights of preemption and redemptionare the only means prescribed by the Code to achieve the
declared policy of the State.
Where the true intent of the law is clear such intent or spirit must prevail over the letter thereof, for
whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, since adherence to the letter would result
in absurdity, injustice and contradictions and would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute.
In Basbas v. Entena, the farmer's right of redemption was not granted because he had yet no funds to
redeem the property and had merely applied for them to the Land Authority which was not yet
operating in the locality. In the case at bar, the farmer's possession of funds and compliance with the
requirements of redemption are not questioned. Hence, entitled to redeem landholding.