Worthless feud

This is a case of four brothers and a sister fighting over a land which does not even belong to their father who is only a tenant. One of the issues raised here is who among them should succeed their father as tenant. Will the ordinary rules of succession in the Civil Code, where all the compulsory heirs inherit, apply?

The land subject of this case is a two-hectare parcel of agricultural land owned by Don Mariano tilled by Mang Ambo as the tenant lessee. Appointed as attorney-in-fact of the land was Mariano’s son, Ranilo who receives the rentals of the land consisting of 40 cavans of palay per hectare. These cavans of palay are turned over to him by Diego, the overseer of the land for Mariano’s family for over sixteen years. As overseer, Diego’s authority is to collect the said rentals, issue receipts and sell other things saleable within the land such as mangoes and bamboo trees.

Mang Ambo died on February 17,1989.On November 6, 1989, Digna, a daughter of Mang Ambo entered into a leasehold contract over the land with Mariano’s son and attorney-in-fact, Ranilo. But at the onset of the planting season that year, Digna could not cultivate one hectare of the land as it was occupied by her four brothers Roberto, Ramon, Leo and Marcial. The dispute led to the case filed by Digna against her brothers for recovery of possession of the one hectare. The brothers resisted the suit. They claimed that they inherited the leasehold right to that portion of the land from their late father Mang Ambo. In fact Diego who was the duly recognized overseer of Don Mariano’s family allowed them to continue possessing and cultivating that portion. The acquiescence of Diego, they said was binding upon Don Mariano’s family particularly Ranilo. There was therefore an "implied tenancy" between them and Mariano’s family over the one hectare portion. In fact, according to Roberto, et.al, Diego even received from them 20 cavans of palay on October 17, 1990, and another 20 cavans on April 1,1991, which Diego said he delivered to Ranilo’s sister who in turn told him that she gave it to Ranilo.

Were Roberto et. al. correct?

No.

The law on succession under the Civil Code should not be confused with succession in agrarian cases. In succession under the Civil Code, the statute spreads the estate of the deceased throughout his heirs; while in agrarian laws, the security of tenure of the deceased tenant shall pass only to the heir chosen by the landowner among the compulsory surviving heirs. The surviving heirs can not preempt that choice by deciding among themselves who shall take over the cultivation or by opting to cultivate the land collectively. It is only when the landowner fails to exercise such right, or waive the same, may the survivors agree among themselves regarding the cultivation. In this case, the landowner through the attorney in fact Ranilo had exercised that option by entering into a leasehold contract with Digna over the two hectare parcel of land on November 6, 1989. In this agricultural lease contract, Digna was designated by the Mariano family to substitute for her deceased father, Mang Ambo.

There is also no "implied tenancy" created between the Mariano family and the brothers Roberto et. al. Diego who allegedly acquiesced to the said arrangement had no authority to appoint tenants or successor tenants, nor to accept rentals from persons other than the tenant so designated by the landowner or persons he would appoint. Since an implied tenancy between the same landowners through their overseer Diego and the brothers Roberto is incompatible with the express and written contract between Ranilo and Digna, and given the absolute lack of evidence to support the existence of an implied tenancy, the express tenancy contract must prevail.

Ranilo is not likewise estopped to deny that implied tenancy for having received 40 cavans. The receipts for the said cavans were issued by Diego, not Ranilo. Diego said that he delivered the palay to Ranilo’s sister who in turn told him that she forwarded the palay to Ranilo. Diego had no personal knowledge that Ranilo received the palay. His testimony that Ranilo received the palay from the sister is hearsay and has no probative value. The receipts issued do not bear the signature of Ranilo. So the latter can not be deemed estopped to deny the implied tenancy. ( Reyes vs. Reyes et.al. G.R.140164, September 6, 2002)

* * *

E-mail us at [email protected]