7/27/2019 Agrarian Law Case Digests (17&19)

1/3

PHILBANCOR FINANCE vs. CAG.R. No. 129572

June 26, 2000

FACTS:

Vicente Hizon, Jr. is the owner of agricultural lands which weretenanted by Alfredo Pare, Pablo Galang, and Amado Vie. Hizonmortgaged the subject property to Philbancor without his tenantsknowledge, and when he failed to pay his obligations, Philbancor wasable to acquire the property at a public auction.

The tenants allegedly only found out about the mortgage seven yearsafter the public auction, when they were notified by Philbancor tovacate the lots. Thus, they filed a complaint for maintenance ofpossession with redemption and tenancy right of pre-emption againstPhilbancor and Hizon with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (PARAB).

The PARAB ruled in favor of the tenants and ordered Philbancor toexecute the necessary Deed of Redemption in favor of the tenants. TheDARAB and the CA affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:W/N the tenants could still exercise their right of redemption, fiveyears after the registration of the certificate of sale with the Register ofDeeds

HELD:NO. Section 12 of RA 3844 provides that the right of redemption maybe exercised within 2 years from the registration of the sale. Theredemption period had already expired when the tenants filed thecomplaint for redemption. Nevertheless, the tenants may continue inpossession and enjoyment of the land in question as legitimate tenantsbecause the right of tenancy attaches to the landholding by operationof law. The leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation ortransfer of the legal possession of the landholding.

HEIRS OF ROMAN SORIANO vs. CA

G.R. No. 128177August 15, 2001

FACTS:The land in dispute in this case is originally owned by Adriano Sorianowho died sometime in 1947. Adriano Soriano has 7 heirs whom leasedthe subject parcel of land to David de Vera and Consuelo Villasista fora term of 15 years starting July 1, 1967. The lease contract states that

7/27/2019 Agrarian Law Case Digests (17&19)

2/3

Roman Soriano will serve as the caretaker of the said property duringthe period of lease. During the effectivity of the lease contract, theheirs of Adriano Soriano entered into extrajudicial settlement of hisestate. As a result of the settlement, the property was divided into twoproperty, Lot No. 60052 which was assigned to Lourdes and Candido,

heirs of Adriano and the heirs of Dionisia another heir of Adriano. Theother property, Lot No. 8459 was assigned to Francisco, Librada,Elcociado and Roman all heirs of Adriano. The owners of Lot No. 60052sold the lot to spouses Braulio and Aquiliana Abalos, and the owners ofLot No. 8459, except Roman also sold their shares to spouses Briones.

On March 14, 1968, the de Vera spouses ousted Roman as caretakerand appointed Isidro Versoza and Vidal Versoza as his substitute.Roman filed a case for reinstatement and reliquidation against the deVera spouses in CAR Case No. 1724-P-68. On September 30, 1969, theAgrarian Court rendered a decision authorizing the ejectment of

Roman. On appeal, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals.The deicion became final and executor. However, before it wasexecuted, the parties entered into a post-decisional agreementwherein the de Vera spouses allowed Roman Soriano to sub-lease theproperty until the termination of the original lease on June 30, 1982.This agreement was approved by the CAR court in an order datedDecember 22, 1972.

On August 16, 1976, the Abalos spouses applied for the registration ofthe disputed parcel of land. Roman Soriano and the Director of Landsacted as oppositors. On June 27, 1983, the Land Registration Court

granted the application for registration. On April 13, 1983, after theexpiration of the original lease and sub-lease in favor of RomanSoriano, the Abalos spouses filed a case for unlawful detainer againstRoman Soriano, later, this case was dismissed on motion of the Abalosspouses. On July 14, 1983, Elcociado, Librada, Roman, Francisco,Lourdes, Candido and the heirs of Dionisia filed a complaint to annulthe deeds of sale they executed in favor of the Abalos spouses orshould the deeds be not annulled, to allow Roman, Elcociado andLibrada to redeem their shares in the disputed land and to upholdRoman Sorianos possession of the fishpond portion of the property asa tenant-caretaker.

After the dismissal of the case for unlawful detainer, the Abalosspouses filed on August 22, 1984, a motion for execution of the post-decisional order embodying the agreement of Roman Soriano and thede Vera spouses allowing the former to sublease the property. OnOctober 25, 1984, Roman filed a motion to suspend hearing on therental demanded by the Abalos spouses until after the other issuesraised in his opposition to the motion for execution are resolved. The

7/27/2019 Agrarian Law Case Digests (17&19)

3/3

motion to suspend hearing on the issue of the rentals was denied andthe trial court authorized the substitution of the de Vera spouses bythe Abalos spouses. Roman Soriano's motion for reconsideration wasdenied on March 16, 1985. Roman filed petition for certiorari andprohibition in the Court of Appeals but the latter denied the petition,

pending the denial of this petition, Roman Soriano died. Not satisfiedwith the decision of the Court of Appeals, the heirs of Roman Sorianobrought this case in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:Whether or not a winning party (ABALOS) in a land registration casecan effectively eject the possessor (SORIANO) thereof, whose securityof tenure rights is still pending determination before the DARAB.

HELD:No. The Court held that a judgment in a land registration case cannot

effectively used to oust the possessor of the land, whose security oftenure rights are still pending determination before the DARAB. Thereis no dispute that Abalos spouses' title over the land under litigationhas been confirmed with finality. However, the declaration pertainsonly to ownership and does not automatically include possession,especially soin the instant case where there is a third party occupyingthe said parcel of land, allegedly in the concept of an agriculturaltenant.Agricultural lessees are entitled to security of tenure and theyhave the right to work on their respective landholdings once theleasehold relationship is established. Security of tenure is a legalconcession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself ad

deprivation of their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of theironly means of livelihood. The exercise of the right of ownership, then,yields to the exercise of the rights of an agricultural tenant.TheSupreme Court decided to refrain from ruling whether petitioners maybe dispossessed of the subject property while petitioner's status astenant has not yet been declared by the DARAB.