[O.P. Case No. 5458.  October 8, 1993.]

PETITION FOR EXCLUSION FROM OLT INVOLVING PARCELS OF LAND SITUATED AT BARANGAY LINOTHANGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL

VICTOR VALENCIA, appellant.

D E C I S I O N

          This refers to the appeal of Victor Valencia, dated October 19, 1992, from the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), dated July 12, 1991, the decretal portion of which reads:

          "WHEREFORE, premises considered, protestant's Motion for Reconsideration dated September 28, 1989 is hereby denied for lack of merit, and the order dated August 24, 1989 of the DAR Regional Director is hereby affirmed."

          This case stemmed from the letter-protest, dated March 20, 1976, filled by Victor Valencia, claiming that persons identified as farmers-beneficiaries of his landholding, 6.4 hectares of which he acquired as homestead, are not tenants, but squatters. Those identified as farmers beneficiaries by the DAR, with particulars, are as follows:

                     Name                             CLT No.                  Lot No.                     Area/s

A.        TAX DEC. NO. 0515

               1.      Santos Gargaya                                     0-071160 0111             0.3300 ha.
               2.      Juliano Magdayao                                  0-071161 0122             0.3350 ha.
                                                               b)                   0-071163 0114             0.2550 ha.
                                                               c)                   0-071166 0117             0.4825 ha.
                                                               d)                   0-071175 0124             0.3140 ha.
B.         TCT NO. HT-137
               3.      Cresenciano
                              Frias                                                0-071164 0115             0.8890 ha.
               4.      Federico J are                 a)                   0-071171 0120             0.4600 ha.
                                                               b)                   0-071172 0121             0.2500 ha.
               5.      Rosendo Lobresco          a)                   0-071189 0135             0.2335 ha.
                                                               b)                   0-071182 0129             1.0325 ha.
               6.      Ernesto Lobresco            a)                   0-071185 0132             0.8900 ha.
                                                               b)                   0-071187 0133             0.8400 ha.
               7.      Feliciano                                                0-071188 0134             0.3400 ha.
                              Lobresco
               8.      Catalino Manotac                                   0-071162 0113             0.0425 ha.
               9.      Victoriano                                              0-071190 0136             0.1800 ha.
                              Montefalcon
               10.    Francisco Obang                                    0-071168 0118             1.200 has.
               11.    Ambrocio                         a)                   0-071165 0116             0.0340 ha.
                              Semillano                   b)                   0-071176 0125             0.1135 ha.
                                                                c)                   0-071177 0126             0.0340 ha.
               12.    Rogelio Tamayo                                      0-071194 0139             0.3400 ha.
               13.    Edilberto                                                0-071173 0122             1.2040 has.
                                                                                                                             ––––––––––––
                                                                    TOTAL AREA                                 10.1055 has.
                                                                                                                            =============

          The antecedent facts, as found by the office a quo, and later adopted by the DAR, are as follows:

          "Subject landholdings were acquired by protestant [Valencia] through a Deed of Sale from its previous owner Bonifacio Supnet on May 7, 1957. On October 22, 1962, protestant leased the above-mentioned parcels to Glicerio Henson for a period of ten (10) years, and subsequently thereafter leased the same to Rev. Fr. Andres Flores. (Annexes 'H' and 'l') During the existence of said lease to Mr. Henson, said lessee instituted as tenants Marciano Frias and Cresencio Frias, while lessee Fr. Flores instituted Francisco Obang, Rogelio Tamayo, Federico Jare, Feleciano Lobresco, Melchor Moncada, Rosendo Lobresco, Victoriano Montefalcon, Santos Gargaya, Catalino Mantac, Herodita Semillano, Ernesto Lobresco, Natividad Lobresco and Alfredo Demerin, wherein sharing of the produce every harvest was observed.

          "After the expiration of the lease contract with Fr. Flores, aforementioned farmers continued their cultivation despite demands of the protestant to vacate the same, so that as early as March 20, 1976 he filed his pre- test with the Department of Agrarian Reform at Canlaon City.

          "From 1975 to 1985, the said farmers continuously gave shares of their palay produce to Berbie Bautista, the appointed overseer of Victor Valencia. Bautista declared however that out of the collected shares not a single cavan of palay was turned over to Mr. Valencia, as he spent all these supposed shares for the maintenance of the hacienda road, pay his salaries and allowances and those of the hacienda laborers. It is however the claim of protestant that he has not granted Bautista the authority to collect or receive shares from the cultivators."

          On August 24, 1989, the DAR Regional Office issued an order dismissing Valencia's protest, pertinently stating:

          "By positive provisions of statutes, civil law lessees of agricultural lands, during the subsistence of the lease, are authorized to establish tenancy relationship either verbally or in writing, expressly or impliedly.

          'The relation of landowner and tenant shall be limited to the person who furnishes the land either as owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor, and to the person who actually works the land himself with the aid of labor available from within his immediate farm household.' (Sec. 8, R.A. 1199, as amended)

          'The agricultural leasehold relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the same.' (Sec. 6, R.A. 3844, as amended)

          "The persons identified by DAR as program beneficiaries having been instituted by civil law lessees' Glicerio Henson and Rev. Fr. Andres Flores into the parcels in question, and where sharing of the produce were had between said lessees and the farmers, a juridical tie of tenancy was thus created. One primary consequence of said tenancy relationship is that the tenants, who are the protestees herein, shall be entitled to security of tenure — which is the right to continue working on the land until such relationship is extinguished in accordance with law. (Sec. 7, R.A. 1199, as amended; Sec. 7, R.A 3844, as amended)

          On October 10, 1989, Valencia moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid order, but the motion was denied by the DAR in an order, dated July 12, 1991. In denying the motion, the DAR Secretary cited the case of Joya et al. vs Pareja (106 Phil. 665, 652), where there the Supreme Court ruled follows:

          'It is our considered judgment, since the return by the lessee of the leased property to the lessor upon the expiration of the contract involves also a transfer of legal possession, and taking into account the manifest intent of the lawmaking body in amending the law, i.e., to provide the tenant with security of tenure in all cases of transfer of legal possession, that the instant case falls within and is governed by the provisions of Section 9 of Republic Act 2263. The termination of the lease, therefore, did not divest the tenant of the right to remain and continue his cultivation of the land. Furthermore, should any doubt as to the applicability of the aforementioned provision of law to the case at bar, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the tenant.'

          Hence, this present recourse.

          The invocation by the DAR of Joya, supra, is apt and well taken. In Ponce vs. Guevarra (10 SCRA 649) promulgated on March 31, 1964, and reiterated in Olanday vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (189 SCRA 175, Aug. 30, 1990), the Supreme Court, upon substantially identical facts citing Joya, held that "where [it is] the lessee of and agricultural land that sub-leased it without the consent of the landholder, and regardless of the extinction of the contractual relations between the landholder and the lessee, and between the lessee and sublessees, the latter cannot be ejected from the land except upon judicial authority and for one of the causes specified by law." In Ponce, the Supreme Court went further to state that the subleasing of the land without the written consent of the landholder, although constituting a violation of the original contract of lease, cannot affect the security of tenure of the sublessees because it was committed by the lessee, not by the sub-lessees, who were not parties to the contract. A tenant of an agricultural lessee has the right to remain in the land being tilled by him notwithstanding the surrender of lease. (Arevalo vs. Bendicto, G.R. No. L-27895, July 31, 1974, 58 SCRA 186, 187.) This tenurial right is expressly provided in Section 9 of Republic Act (RA) 1199, as amended by RA 2263, which reads in part:

          "Sec. 9.         Severance of Relations. — The tenancy relationship is extinguished by the voluntary surrender or abandonment of the land by, or the death or incapacity of, the tenant:

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

          "The expiration of the period of the contract as fixed by the parties, or the sale, alienation or transfer of legal possession of the land does not of itself extinguish the relationship. In the latter case the purchaser or transferee shall assume the rights and obligations of the former landholder in relation to the tenant. . .

          Appellant's argument on his right of retention under RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law," is untenable. This law, which was passed on June 7, 1988, contains no express provision for retroactivity. Article 4 of the New Civil Code provides that: "Laws shall not have a retroactive effect unless therein otherwise provided."

          It is a rule in statutory construction that all statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective operation, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. (Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 420)

          However, we find merit in appellant's contention that "THE DAR ERRED IN SUBJECTING HIS ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD APPLICATION, DULY APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF LANDS WITH AN AREA OF 6.4397 HECTARES UNDER PD 27."

          Records disclose that appellant filed his homestead application under Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141, as amended, on March 25, 1957, or before acquiring his landholding of 23.7279 hectares on May 7, 1957. Hence, at the time he filed said application, he was not ineligible for the homestead program.

          The Supreme Court, in Alita vs. Court of Appeals (170 SCRA 706), held that P.D. 27 cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or CA No. 141. In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over those of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides:

          "Section 6.     The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands."

          Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of PD 27 to lands covered by homestead patents, reading:

          "Section 6.     Retention Limits. . . .

          ". . . Provided further, That original homestead grantees of their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead."

          WHEREFORE, the Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform, dated July 12, 1991, is hereby AFFIRMED, subject to the modification that the area acquired by VICTOR VALENCIA as homestead shall be excluded from the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27.

          SO ORDERED.

          Manila, Philippines.

By authority of the President:

(SGD.) TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.
Executive Secretary