The tenant-landlord

This is the case of an emancipated tenant who became a landlord. It involves a private agricultural land planted to rice with an area of 1.787 hectares originally owned by Marta. When P.D. 27 was issued, the land became subject to operation land transfer, so Marta submitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the list of tenants. Included in the list was Estacio who was also the administrator of the property. Eventually, the property was awarded to Estacio, but being already old and sickly, he requested that it be registered instead in the name of his adopted daughter Lily. The request was granted, so on April 23, 1984, Certificate of Land Transfer was issued in Lily’s name. Subsequently an Emancipation Patent and a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was likewise issued in Lily’s name on March 5, 1987.

But as early as 1985, Lily, through her uncle had allowed Dario to cultivate the land and give her a share of the harvest. In 1986, Lily through her uncle tried to get back the land for failure of Dario to give her share. Due to their friendship however and lack of funds on the part of Lily, Dario was allowed to continue the cultivation on the promise that he would give Lily’s share of the harvest and pay the amortization with the Land Bank. This lasted for 11 years when the relationship between the parties became estranged. So on April 2, 1996, Dario and the DAR through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer and Regional Director filed a petition for cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer and Emancipation Patent issued in Lily’s name and for the issuance of a new certificate and patent in Dario’s name.

Lily opposed the said petition, contending that since an emancipation patent and a TCT had already been issued to her, her ownership of the property had become conclusive and no longer subject to controversy. Besides, Lily said that Dario was not a bona fide tenant of the property so she cannot be considered guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the certificate of land transfer. Was Lily correct?

No. PD 27 was anchored upon the fundamental objective addressing valid and legitimate grievances of land ownership giving rise to violent conflict and social tension in the countryside. It called for reformation to start with the emancipation of the tiller from the bondage of the soil and encourage a more productive agricultural base of the country’s economy. To achieve this end the decree laid down a system for the purchase by small farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they were tilling.

With the emancipation of farmer-tenants, they were deemed owners of the land they were tilling and were granted the right to personally possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding.

The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may be cancelled for violations of the Agrarian Reform Laws. In this case it was Dario who tilled the land and gave shares to Lily. He also paid the land amortization with the Land Bank. Markedly absent in the case of Lily is the element of personal cultivation. Instead she permitted and actually engaged the service of Dario to do the farm work in exchange for the payment of the amortization and shares in the produce of the land. In effect Lily had taken the shoes of a landlord, an inimical practice the Agrarian Reform Program among others was designed to abolish if not eradicate.

By admittedly allowing Dario to cultivate the property and receiving the owner’s share of the produce, Lily implicitly recognized Dario as tenant. There thus arose between them an implied contract of tenancy. So she had committed a violation of the terms and conditions of the Land Title (Ayo-Alburo vs. Matobato, G.R. 155181. April 15, 2005. 456 SCRA 399)

* * *

E-mail at [email protected]