FORMER SIXTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. No. SP-01665. July 7, 1975.]
MARCELINO MEJORADA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NUMERIANO OHAGAN, TEODORO SANTOS and TERESITA VELENZUELA, defendant-appellee.
R E S O L U T I O N
REYES, A., J p:
Plaintiff-appellant's motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on December 2, 1974 as modified by the Resolution of April 8, 1975 is before Us for consideration based on the following:
"I
THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT HAS BEEN THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE ON THE LANDHOLDING IN QUESTION BEGINNING THE NEXT SUCCEEDING AGRICULTURAL YEAR AFTER OCTOBER 7, 1968.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S CLAIM FOR ACTUAL, EXEMPLARY AND MORAL DAMAGES PLUS ATTORNEY'S FEES.
III
THIS HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES NUMERIANO OHAGAN AND TEODORO SANTOS ARE TENANT-FARMERS IN CONTEMPLATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 316 AND THAT THEIR OUSTER FROM THE LANDHOLDING IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE ORDERED."
As to the first ground, suffice it for the Court to restate the pertinent portion of the decision sought to be reconsidered, to wit:
"4. Declaring the relationship between plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee Teresita Valenzuela to be one of leasehold pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844;"
is being self-explanatory. The provisions of law cited by plaintiff-appellant in support of the first ground of his Motion for Reconsideration are exactly the same provisions of law referred to in Our Decision of December 2, 1974 although the Court did not make it specific. The first ground is therefore without merit.
The actual, exemplary and moral damages sought by the plaintiff-appellant in his second ground can not be awarded in his favor. The record is clear that defendant-appellee, Teresita Valenzuela was never informed by Relova that Mejorada was working the land in question thus, when Relova returned the land to her (Teresita Valenzuela) she immediately gave possession to her co-defendants. While there had been evidence that a sister of Teresita Valenzuela was approached by plaintiff Mejorada, there is, however, no evidence that this fact was ever transmitted to defendant Teresita for information and guidance. The three defendants were therefore without knowledge of the true relationship existing between plaintiff-appellant and Relova at the time. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Relova even during the trial, vehemently denied having any tenancy relationship with the plaintiff-appellant over the land subject of the case. Bad faith can not just be presumed. It must be proved. Appellant's contention is therefore without merit.
Finally, as to appellant's contention that the suspension of the execution of the decision would in effect nullify his right to security of tenure being the bona fide agricultural tenant is without merit. The right to security of tenure does not only apply to bona fide tenants. It also applies to actual-tillers of the land. Pursuant to Department Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform for the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 27, security of tenure is likewise available to actual-tillers of the land and actual-tillers has been defined "to be the tenant-farmer, sublessee and purchaser or mortgagee of possession who at the time the Decree (Pres. Decree 27) was promulgated has been in actual possession and cultivation of his farmholding and who has shared the products thereof for at least one (1) agricultural year preceding the Decree. (Emphasis supplied.) Presidential Decree No. 27 was promulgated on Oct. 21, 1972 and defendants Ohagan and Santos were already in possession of the land in question since 1968 or about four (4) years before. Appellant's argument must therefore fail. SIcEHD
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, plaintiff-appellant's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Pascual and Chanco, JJ., concur.