February 9, 1999
DAR OPINION NO. 11-99
TROADIO M . BENITEZ
212 Alley 1, Project 6
Quezon City
Dear Mr. Benitez:
This has reference to your letter dated 11 November 1998 seeking opinion on the following queries, to wit:
1. What are the obligations of the heirs of the late agricultural lessors to their tenants once the landholding is divided among themselves?
2. What are your remedies to eject your tenant including her children who built their concrete houses in the subject land without your permission?
3. Can the son of your tenant inherit and succeed to her right in case of her death?
4. Can the legal heirs take possession of the land and till the same by themselves?
5. What are the sanctions provided by law against a tenant who is not planting rice properly?
As culled from your letter, your late parents left a small parcel of riceland with an aggregate area of 1.2 hectares, more or less; that you, including your brothers and sisters, are intending to partition the subject property among yourselves; that the said landholding is being tenanted by two (2) tenants; and that you intend to recover the possession of the subject property from your tenants because you are now retired from the government service and wanted to settle in the province.
Anent your first query, the obligation of the legal heirs toward their tenants is not affected by the death of their parents (agricultural lessors) since such relationship continues to remain despite their death. This is evident under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) which provides that "in case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs." Thus, the legal heirs shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of their late parents (agricultural lessors).
Anent your second query, Section 24 of R.A. No. 3844 expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold." A homelot is an integral part of the farm and an indispensable factor in farm operations used by a lessee as the site of his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries which area may not exceed 1,000 square meters. Since the 600 sq. m. homelot alloted with the earlier permission of your late father is considered under the law as included in the leasehold, your tenant including her children are legally entitled thereto and they cannot be ejected therefrom except for cause as provided for by law.
Anent your third query, Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 provides, quote: "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 . . . That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established." The son of a tenant may therefore take the place of his deceased parent as tenant of the land subject to the conditions as legally provided above.
It must be stressed here likewise that a tenant enjoys security of tenure on his landholding, which means that he/she cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the court for cause. Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that "the agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished." Time and again, the Supreme Court has guaranteed the continuity and security of tenure of tenant even in cases of a mere transfer of legal possession. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
As regards your fourth query, personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship because the same has been deleted as a ground for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844. Such being the case, you may not dispossess your tenant of his farmlot on the ground that you will personally cultivate your landholding.
Anent your last query, Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 (par. 2) expressly provides that one of the causes for dispossession of agricultural lessees is that he/she failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of said law unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure. This presupposes however that the dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory and after due hearing. Moreover, Section 37 of the aforementioned law likewise provides that the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor. Ejectment of a tenant without authorization by a Court constitutes unauthorized dispossession punishable by law (Section 31, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
We hope to have clarified the matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning