Family feud

Feuds among siblings usually involve lands belonging to their parents. But in this case they fought for a land which does not belong to their father.

The father in this case is Mang Pedro who had one daughter, Dina and four sons, Bert, Tito, Alex and Max. Mang Pedro was the tenant farmer of a two-hectare parcel of agricultural land owned by Don Pablo who appointed his son Randy as his attorney-in-fact to exercise ownership rights over the property. Randy thus receives the rental to the land paid by Mang Pedro consisting of 40 cavans of palay per hectare which were turned over to him by the land’s overseer, Diego.

When Mang Pedro died, only his daughter Dina acquired the tenancy rights over the land as Don Pablo’s son Randy apparently preferred her over her four brothers and entered into a leasehold contract only with her. But at the onset of the planting season that year, Dina could not cultivate one hectare of the land since it was already occupied and being cultivated by her four brothers.

So Dina had to file a suit against her brothers for recovery of possession of the one hectare. Bert, Tito, Alex and Max resisted the suit. They claimed that they inherited the leasehold right to that portion of the land from their late father, Mang Pedro. In fact Diego, the recognized overseer of Don Pablo, allowed them to continue possessing and cultivating that portion of the land and received from them the 20 cavans of palay as rentals. So they contended that there was an implied tenancy between them and Don Pablo’s family, particularly Randy who could not therefore execute a leasehold contract with Dina over the entire land. Were the four brothers correct?

No. The law on succession under the Civil Code should not be confused with succession in agrarian cases. Succession under the Civil Code spreads the estate of the deceased to all the heirs; while under agrarian laws the security of tenure of the deceased tenant shall pass only to the heir chosen by the landowner among the surviving compulsory heirs. The surviving heirs cannot 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 waives the same, may the survivors agree among themselves on the cultivation of the land.

In this case, The landowner through his son and Attorney-in-Fact, Randy had exercised that right by entering into a leasehold contract with Dina over the two-hectare parcel of land. In this agricultural lease contract, Dina was designated by Don Pablo’s family to substitute for her deceased father, Mang Pedro.

There is also no implied tenancy created between the four brothers and Don Pedro’s family. Diego, the overseer who allegedly acquiesced to the said arrangement, had no authority to appoint tenants or successors in interest, nor to accept rentals from persons other than the tenant designated by the landowner. The express and written contract of tenancy between Randy and Dina must prevail over the alleged implied tenancy (Reyes vs. Reyes et. al., G.R. No 140164, September 6, 2002).

Notice: Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law and Criminal Law, Volumes I and II are now available at 403 Sunrise Condominium, 226, Ortigas Ave. Greenhills, San Juan, tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]