Automat
Automat
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
396
397
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
the alternative, if the facts can show that the proper case involves the Civil
Code provisions on builders, planters, and sowers, respondent spouses may
be considered as builders, planters, or sowers in good faith, provided such is
proven before the proper court. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that
if the landowner opts to “appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting,” he must pay indemnity to the builder, planter, or sower in good
faith in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code.
Same; Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board;
Jurisdiction; The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has “primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP] . .
. and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations
(IRR).”—The DARAB has “primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both
original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the [CARP] . . . and other agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations.”
Same; Agrarian Disputes; Words and Phrases; “Agrarian dispute” has
been defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 as referring
to any controversy relating to tenurial arrange-
398
LEONEN, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 12-46. This petition was filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
2 Id., at pp. 54-68.
3 Id., at pp. 261-267.
4 Id., at pp. 279-280.
5 Id., at pp. 197-200.
6 Id., at p. 45.
399
_______________
7 Id., at p. 55.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id., at pp. 55-56.
11 Id., at p. 56.
400
_______________
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 56 and 530.
15 Id., at p. 56.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
401
_______________
18 Id., at p. 266. The DARAB decision was penned by Assistant Secretary Vice
Chairman Lorenzo R. Reyes.
19 Id.
20 They filed a petition via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
21 Id., at pp. 60-61.
22 Id., at p. 68.
23 Id., at p. 67.
24 Id., at p. 143.
25 Id., at p. 141.
26 Id., at p. 142.
27 Id., at pp. 138-140.
28 Id., at pp. 72-93.
402
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
_______________
403
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
I
No agricultural tenancy relationship
_______________
37 Id.
38 Id., at p. 479.
39 Galope v. Bugarin, G.R. No. 185669, February 1, 2012, 664 SCRA 733, 738
[Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division]; Rodriguez v. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June
8, 2011, 651 SCRA 429, 437 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]; See also Suarez v.
Saul, 510 Phil. 400, 406; 473 SCRA 628, 634 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division].
404
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
I.A
Actual tillers
_______________
40 Nicorp Management v. De Leon, 585 Phil. 598, 605; 563 SCRA 606, 612
(2008) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
41 Id., at pp. 605-606; p. 612.
42 Joson v. Mendoza, 505 Phil. 208, 219; 468 SCRA 95, 105 (2005) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
43 Rollo, pp. 143 and 474-475.
44 Norma S. Bartolazo, Ricardo M. Saturno, and Resurreccion E. Federiso.
45 Rollo, p. 476.
46 Id., at p. 475.
405
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
land. This brings us to the second requisite that the property must be
agricultural land.
I.B
Not agricultural land
_______________
406
_______________
407
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 ruled that lands
already classified as commercial, industrial or residential use and approved
by the HLURB prior to the effectivity of RA No. 6657 on June 15, 1988 no
longer need any conversion clearance. Moreover, the term agricultural lands
as defined in Section 3(c) of RA 6657 do not include those lands already
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial. The case
at hand shows that the subject property is within the nonagricultural zone
prior to 15 June 1988.
Further, said lands reclassified to nonagricultural prior to June 15,
1988 ceased to be considered as “agricultural lands” and removed from
the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
After a careful evaluation of the documents presented, this office finds
substantial compliance by the applicant with the documentary requirements
prescribed under DAR Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2003.57
(Emphasis supplied)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
_______________
408
_______________
59 DAR Administrative Order No. 1 (1990), cited in Junio v. Garilao, 503 Phil.
154, 163; 465 SCRA 173, 181 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
60 This Republic Act was approved on August 8, 1963.
61 Section 166(18) defines “idle lands” as “land not devoted directly to any crop
or to any definite economic purpose for at least one year prior to the notice of
expropriation except for reasons other than force majeure or any other fortuitous
event but used to be devoted or is suitable to such crop or is contiguous to land
devoted directly to any crop and does not include land devoted permanently or
regularly to other essential and more productive purpose.”
62 Section 166(19) defines “abandoned lands” as “lands devoted to any crop at
least one year prior to the notice of expropriation, but which was not utilized by the
owner for his benefit for the past five years prior to such notice of expropriation.”
63 Rep. Act No. 3844 (1963), Sec. 166(1).
409
I.C
Consent; nature of relationship
_______________
64 593 Phil. 108; 572 SCRA 463 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
65 Rollo, p. 61, citing Sta. Ana v. Carpo, id., at p. 125; p. 479.
66 Rollo, p. 476.
410
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
On the other hand, petitioners argue that the acts of the parties
“taken in their entirety must be demonstrative of an intent to
continue a prior tenancy relationship established by the
landholder.”70 There should be “no issue . . . [on] the authority of the
overseer to establish a real right over the land.”71
Petitioners contend that there is no prior tenancy relationship to
speak of between respondent spouses and Automat. Petitioner
Cecilia executed an affidavit submitted to the DARAB categorically
denying respondent spouses’ allegations that he instituted them as
agricultural tenants.72 Petitioner Lim executed a similar affidavit
“debunking [respondent spouses’] claim that they were instituted as
agricultural tenants.”73 Petitioners, thus, emphasize that petitioners
Cecilia and Lim’s authority to establish a real right over the land has
been properly questioned, and no special power of attorney74
_______________
67 Id., at p. 477.
68 Id.
69 Id., at p. 478, citing Santos v. Vda. de Cerdenola, 115 Phil. 813; 5 SCRA 823
(1962) [Per J. Barrera, En Banc].
70 Rollo, p. 500, citing Sialana v. Avila, 528 Phil. 82; 495 SCRA 501 (2006) [Per
J. Austria-Martinez, First Division] and Santos v. Vda. de Cerdenola, supra.
71 Rollo, p. 500.
72 Id., at pp. 120 and 503.
73 Id., at p. 505.
74 Civil Code, Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the
following cases:
....
411
_______________
412
_______________
79 Rollo, p. 119.
80 Id., at p. 529.
81 Id., at p. 544.
82 Id., at pp. 119-120.
413
petitioner Lim holds office and Quezon City where Automat has
its office.83 Automat never denied receipt of these rentals.
Respondent spouses’ petition for maintenance of peaceful
possession filed with the PARAD alleged that “as regards the
sharing arrangement derived from the rice/palay harvests, petitioners
were verbally instructed to deliver the same to . . . Lito Cecilia who
was authorized to collect for and in behalf of Automat every
cropping period, the amount of Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos covering the two (2) parcels of land.”84 They attached
photocopies of five (5) checks in the name of Automat for the
following amounts: (a) P8,000.00 dated December 31, 1993; (b)
P7,500.00 dated December 31, 1993; (c) P7,500.00 dated January 5,
1995; (d) P8,000.00 dated January 10, 1995; and (e) P7,500.00 dated
June 22, 1997.85
I.C.1
Civil lease
_______________
83 Id., at p. 120.
84 Id., at p. 124.
85 Id., at pp. 138-140.
86 See Ganzon v. Court of Appeals, 434 Phil. 626, 639; 385 SCRA 399, 411
(2002) [Per J. Vitug, First Division] where this court determined that the relationship
between the parties was not of agricultural tenancy, but one of civil law lease. See
also Bejasa v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 499, 509; 335 SCRA 190, 199 (2000) [Per
J. Pardo, First Division].
414
stood to have been for all the time necessary for the gathering of
the fruits which the whole estate leased may yield in one year, or
which it may yield once, although two or more years may have to
elapse for the purpose.”
On the other hand, Article 1687 states that “[i]f the period for the
lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if
the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is
monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to
day, if the rent is to be paid daily. . . .” Applying this provision, “the
contract expires at the end of such month [year, week, or day] unless
prior thereto, the extension of said term has been sought by
appropriate action and judgment is, eventually, rendered therein
granting the relief.”87
Under the statute of frauds, an unwritten lease agreement for a
period of more than one year is unenforceable unless ratified.88
_______________
87 Yap v. Court of Appeals, 406 Phil. 281, 289; 353 SCRA 714, 720 (2001) [Per J.
Bellosillo, Second Division].
88 Civil Code, Art. 1403.
Art. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no
authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In
the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action,
unless the same, or some note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing, and
subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents:
....
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of
real property or of an interest therein[.] (Emphasis supplied)
415
I.C.2
Builder, planter, sower
In the alternative, if the facts can show that the proper case
involves the Civil Code provisions on builders, planters, and sowers,
respondent spouses may be considered as builders, planters, or
sowers in good faith, provided such is proven before the proper
court.
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that if the landowner opts
to “appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting,” he must
pay indemnity to the builder, planter, or sower in good faith in
accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code:
_______________
89 Civil Code, Art. 1405 provides that “[c]ontracts infringing the Statute of
Frauds, referred to in No. 2 of Article 1403, are ratified by the failure to object to the
presentation of oral evidence to prove the same, or by the acceptance of benefits
under them.” (Emphasis supplied) See Orduña v. Fuentebella, G.R. No. 176841,
June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 146, 159 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., First Division].
416
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of
the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
....
ART. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but
only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with
the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of
paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.
....
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded
to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which
he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if
his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount
expended. (Emphasis supplied)
This Court has ruled that this provision covers only cases in which the
builders, sowers or planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or,
at least, to have a claim of title thereto. It does not apply when the interest is
merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From
these pronouncements, good faith
_______________
90 Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Nanol, G.R. No. 176791, November 14, 2012,
685 SCRA 453, 467-468 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
417
is identified by the belief that the land is owned; or that — by some title —
one has the right to build, plant, or sow thereon.
However, in some special cases, this Court has used Article 448 by
recognizing good faith beyond this limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v.
Abesia, this provision was applied to whose house — despite having been
built at the time he was still co-owner — overlapped with the land of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
another. This article was also applied to cases wherein a builder had
constructed improvements with the consent of the owner. The Court
ruled that the law deemed the builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v.
Agana, the builders were found to be in good faith despite their reliance on
the consent of another, whom they had mistakenly believed to be the owner
of the land.91 (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
91 Id., at p. 468, citing Macasaet v. Macasaet, 482 Phil. 853, 871-872; 439 SCRA
625, 644-645 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
92 Rollo, pp. 123-124.
93 Id., at p. 56.
94 Id., at p. 529.
418
II
DARAB’s jurisdiction
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
_______________
419
RULE II
Jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
_______________
ano v. Bravo, G.R. No. 152086, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 403, 418 [Per J.
Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
420
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
421
_______________
422
423
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/25
4/11/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 737
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a0cbf115826a6691d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25