September 4, 1998

DAR OPINION NO. 88-98

MARO VALENTIN C. TAMBIS

Department of Agrarian Reform

Municipal Agrarian Reform Office

Placer, Surigao del Norte

Dear MARO Tambis:

This refers to your letter dated 16 July 1998 requesting for opinion on the legality of acquisition of a certain parcel of riceland covered by P.D. No. 27 and the corresponding rights of the farmer-beneficiary therein.

The facts in your letter alleged that the subject riceland was covered by P.D. No. 27 under a direct payment scheme and the title thereto was registered in the name of the farmer-beneficiary that an Emancipation Patent was already issued to the farmer-beneficiary by the DAR, however, the subject parcel of land, at the time of award, was the subject of a litigation between parties claiming ownership over the said land, where the selling landowner turned out to be the losing party, and the ownership over the land was granted by the court in favor of the other claimant-landowner; and that the administrator of the winning party now wants to oust the farmer beneficiary of the possession and ownership of the property.

Your letter posed the following queries:

1.         Did the FB acquire full ownership of the riceland awarded to him by the DAR, the latter not being aware of the pending litigation?

2.         If the ownership of the riceland is under litigation what is its effect to his cultivation and tenurial rights?

3.         If the administrator of the winning party insists on the FB's ouster, what are the courses of action and remedies to be taken by the latter?

4.         What will be the role of the DAR in assisting the FB?

It is a settled doctrine that mere cultivation without proof of the conditions of tenancy does not suffice to establish tenancy relationship. All the following conditions must be present for tenancy relationship to exist:

a.         That the parties are the landholder and the tenant;

b.         That the subject is agricultural land;

c.         That there is consent by the landowner for tenant to work on the land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;

d.         That the purpose is agricultural production;

e.         That there is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm household; and

f.          That there is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce.

Basic is the rule that in lands covered under P.D. No. 27, the supposed beneficiary should be a tenant or there should be a tenancy relationship which exists between the landowner and the farmer beneficiary. All told, there is clearly no tenancy relationship that exists in the instant query between the winning party and the supposed farmer-beneficiary.

In response to your first query, please be advised that the farmer-beneficiary did not acquire ownership of the subject land by virtue of the award by the Department of Agrarian Reform. The Supreme Court, in the case of Angel Cunanan vs. Hon. Andres Aguilar, et al., 85 SCRA 47, has pronounced that tenancy relationship can only, be created with the consent of the true and lawful landowner who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land. It cannot be created by the act of a supposed landowner, who has no right to the land subject to the tenancy, much less by one who has been dispossessed of the same by final judgment.

In the light of the foregoing and taking into consideration the facts stated in your letter, it is clear that the farmer-beneficiary acquired his alleged right over the land from someone who has no right to the same; hence, he merely steps into the shoe of the losing selling-landowner and acquired no better right than the latter. To hold otherwise is to permit a situation where the losing party (selling landowner) can defeat the judgment, by the mere device of appointing an alleged farmer-beneficiary and selling the landholding to him.

As regards your second query, please be informed that as aptly stated in the above cited case, a court judgment is enforceable against a person not actually a party to the case where he was instituted as tenant by the losing selling-landowner. Based on the foregoing premises, the Decision/Order of the court in the instant query is binding upon the farmer-beneficiary. Thus, the cultivation and tenurial rights of the herein farmer-beneficiary shall necessarily cease since it is settled that security of tenure may be invoked only by tenants de jure and not by those who are not true and lawful tenants.

Anent your third query, the winning party can validly deprive the tenant of an ousted landholder of the subject riceland because without the consent of the lawful landholder, the alleged tenant could not validly say that his illegal possession has ripened into a legal one by reason of an assumed tenancy relationship. Said tenant can, however, file an action in court against the ousted landholder. Moreover, the ousted farmer-beneficiary may be considered a beneficiary not under P.D. No. 27 but under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, he may opt to be a beneficiary in other lands that may be available for distribution provided he meets the basic qualifications of a beneficiary as enumerated in the aforesaid provision of law.

As regards your fourth query, the Department of Agrarian Reform may identify and consider the supposed farmer as an agrarian reform beneficiary in another land if qualified as such pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.

The aforementioned, notwithstanding, may we remind you however that the foregoing opinion does not constitute a ruling in any case that involved or may involve the same subject matter.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning