September 29, 2000
DAR OPINION NO. 22-00
MR. SALVADOR CASINILLA
Tuguipa, Hilongos
Leyte
Dear Mr. Casinilla:
This refers to your letter of 08 February 1999 requesting opinion on the queries posed therein, summarized as follows:
1. Whether or not a public school teacher is qualified to succeed as tenant upon his father's death;
2. Whether or not a lessor may eject a tenant without probable cause on the ground of personal cultivation; and
3. Whether or not a lessor may be held liable if he purposely closes the drainage system of the landholding causing damage to the crops. What proper action should a tenant do in this situation?
Anent your query on the succession of tillage in agricultural leasehold, the applicable provision of law is Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, quoted hereunder:
"Sec. 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished By Death or Incapacity of the Parties. — In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: a) the surviving spouse; b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age. . . . Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the period herein provided the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established."
From the aforequoted provision of law, the person who may succeed to the tenancy rights of a deceased tenant must be a person who can cultivate the landholding personally. Moreover, in Samson vs. de Alfonso, CA-G.R. No. SP-06452-R, June 30, 1977, it was held that the successor must be a bona fide farmer at the time he succeeds to the relationship. Hence, it is our opinion that a public school teacher, as a rule, cannot succeed as a tenant to the landholding for the reason that, as such, it is quite improbable that he can manage to become a farmer and a teacher at the same time. Teaching and farming are not, in any manner, related. Further, in "Magalong vs. Yap" (CA-G.R. No. SP-03163-CAR, April 14, 1977), the Court of Appeals likewise held: "We fail to see how a person in the situation of the plaintiff who was employed as a full-time working operator in a corn mill, working therein from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. everyday excluding Sundays and holidays, could still be a tenant on a parcel of riceland. No matter how industrious he might be, he simply may not devote enough time and attention to the cultivation of the landholding as are called for by the nature of such task."
Pertinent to the second issue are the provisions of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, which provide that the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes provided by law. It follows that tenants may not be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court, now the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, and for causes provided by law. Moreover, since personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship as the same has been deleted as a ground for ejectment of a tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (I) of R.A. No. 3844, a tenant may not therefore be dispossessed of his farmholding on the ground that the landowner will personally cultivate the same.
Anent the third issue, Section 30 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that the agricultural-lessor has the obligation to keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the land at the start of the leasehold relation such as irrigation and drainage systems. Thus, the agricultural lessor may be held liable if he purposely closes the drainage system of the land to the detriment of the crops planted therein. In all cases, the agricultural-lessor shall respect the peaceful possession and cultivation of his tenant-lessee. Significantly, should the agricultural lessor fail to respect the peaceful possession and cultivation of his tenant-lessee, the latter may seek the assistance of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) concerned to jointly conduct mediation conference between the landowner and the tenant for the purpose of threshing out any differences between them. If no agreement is reached, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) may assume jurisdiction over the matter. Again, if they fail to resolve the conflict on that level, the aggrieved party may file a case with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
We hope to have clarified the matters for you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FEDERICO A. POBLETE
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
Hon. Conrado S. Navarro
Undersecretary — FOSSO
This Department