May 28, 1996

DAR OPINION NO. 33-96

Mr. Leonardo B. Rosario

1315 Langit St.

Sta. Cruz, Manila

Dear Mr. Rosario:

This has reference to your letter seeking opinion on certain queries relative to an agricultural land owned by the late spouses Gregorio Basa and Iluminada del Rosario located at Bgy. Galicia, Mendez, Cavite and Brgy. Patutong Malaki, Tagaytay City.

You state that the heirs of the landowner and the 17 tenants of the landholding have agreed that the latter would voluntarily surrender their tillage and vacate their farmlots in exchange for "disturbance compensation" at the rate of P30.00 to P40.00 per square meter; that in accordance with said agreement, said tenants had in fact been paid the amount corresponding to the area cultivated by them; that in addition the tenants also received all the coffee harvested from the land; that aside from said compensation, Leonida Salazar (wife of deceased Tacio Salazar) is asking for compensation on behalf of her husband, for being the "caretaker" of the land; that tenant Isagani Peji is likewise demanding for compensation as caretaker before vacating his tillage; and that, the son of tenant Feliza Matienzo, who built a house on the property (per authority not of the landowner but of the caretaker), refuses to vacate the premises unless he is paid by the heirs of the landowner.

Against the foregoing backdrop, you pose the following queries:

1)        Does the wife of the "caretaker" have the right to claim compensation aside from the agreed disturbance compensation which has already been paid? Does she have the right not to vacate the property after she accepted the payment and signed her "Sinumpaang Salaysay"?

2)        Does the son of one of the tenants have the right not to vacate the land after his mother had been paid and had signed her "Sinumpaang Salaysay"?

3)        Can a DAR Clearance be issued after payment of the disturbance compensation and compliance with all the documents required?

The answer to your first two queries is that, in general, after compensation has been paid in accordance with the agreement, the heirs of the landowner have sufficient basis to expect the tenants to vacate the premises. It is noted that in their respective "Sinumpaang Salaysay", Leonida Salazar and Isagani Peji undertook to voluntarily surrender their farmlots after receiving compensation. As said tenants signed the same and acknowledged receipt of payment, it can be reasonably presumed that they are bound by the terms of said agreement. However, we do not discount the possibility that there was a separate agreement as regards the compensation of Tacio Salazar and Isagani Peji as caretakers of the property, which might be the basis for their separate claim. In this regard, we advise that the matter be threshed out amicably with said tenants.

As regards your third query, since only tenants are granted legal rights over their farmlots, it is submitted that a tenant's son cannot legally refuse to vacate the farmlot on the basis of his mother's tenancy.

Anent your last query, if the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) having jurisdiction over the property is convinced that the tenants have voluntarily surrendered their farmlots, a certification to that effect maybe issued by said Officer.

We hope to have answered your queries. We wish to add, however, that the foregoing opinion does not constitute a decision on any pending case nor any case that may be filed in connection with the situation Presented in your letter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES

OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA