CASE DIGEST: Jopson vs. Mendez, Jr.
G.R. No. 191538 : December 11, 2013
WELLER JOPSON, Petitioner, v. FABIAN O. MENDEZ, JR. and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
PERALTA, J.:FACTS:
Spouses Laura S. Pascual and Jose H. Mendoza owned a parcel of land situated at Naga City, Camarines Sur. The property had an aggregate area of 101,045 square meters and was covered by TCT No. 687. On 26 December 1961, the said property was subdivided into sixty-three (63) lots through a judicially approved subdivision and became part of Laura Subdivision. Thus, TCT No. 687 was cancelled and, in its stead, TCT No. 986 (covering 31 lots), TCT No. 987 (covering 31 lots) and TCT No. 988 (covering 1 lot) were issued.
On 4 January 1992, spouses Laura and Jose conveyed to respondent DBP by way of dacion en pago, the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 986 which has an area of eight thousand nine hundred forty-six (8,946) square meters. The transfer was evidenced by a Deed of Conveyance of Real Estate Property in Payment of Debt. As a consequence, the Registry of Deeds of Naga City cancelled TCT No. 986 and issued TCT No. 1149 in favor of respondent DBP.
Sometime in the year 1990, respondent DBP published an Invitation to Bid for the conveyance of the subject landholding covered by TCT No. 1149. On 28 December 1990, the said property was sold for P1.2M to petitioner Fabian O. Mendez, Jr. as the highest bidder. Thus, TCT No. 1149 was cancelled and, in lieu of it, TCT No. 21190 was issued to respondent Mendez.
Sometime in 1991, a Complaint was filed by Weller Jopson with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur. It was directed against respondent DBP, respondent Mendez, and Leonardo Tominio for annulment of sale, preemption/redemption and reinstatement with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with damages.
In essence, petitioner alleged that he is a bona fide tenant-farmer of the parcel of land subject of the sale between respondent DBP and respondent Mendez; his father Melchor, was the original tenant of subject landholding appointed as such by the spouses Laura and Jose in 1947; in 1967, he succeeded his father in cultivating the subject landholding now covered by the present TCT No. 21190 when his father became ill; from 1967 up to December 1990, he laboriously tilled and cultivated the parcel of land and religiously shared the harvest with respondent DBP through its representatives or employees; on 20 December 1990, a certain Leonardo, acting upon the instructions of respondent Mendez, unlawfully entered the subject landholding and ejected him from the same; the sale of the subject landholding by respondent DBP to petitioner is void because the latter is not qualified to acquire the same under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657; the sale of the parcel of land is also violative of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 360, series of 1989, in relation to Section 1 of E.O. No. 407 dated 14 June 1990; he was deprived of his preferential right to buy the parcel of land he tenanted under reasonable terms and conditions as provided for by Section 11, R.A. No. 3844; in the alternative, he also has the right to redeem the parcel of land from petitioner at a reasonable price pursuant to Section 12, R.A. No. 3844; the forcible entry by Leonardo upon the instructions of respondent Mendez desecrated his right to security of tenure and deprivation of his livelihood; he is entitled to the award of actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses; a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent petitioner or his agents from disposing of the parcel of land.
In his Answer, respondent Mendez denied petitioners allegations and asseverated that the latter has no cause of action against him and is guilty of laches for not having questioned the auction sale of the parcel of land; the PARAD had no jurisdiction over the case because the parcel of land subject of the sale is no longer classified as agricultural and it is not located in an agricultural zone; as compulsory counterclaim, he is entitled to the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses; as cross-claim against respondent DBP, he prayed that in the event judgment is rendered in petitioners favor, respondent DBP should shoulder all the monetary awards that will be granted to petitioner, return to him the purchase price with interest, reimburse him all the expenses that he incurred relative to the purchase of the parcel of land and the improvements thereon, compensate him for lost business opportunities and pay him for the reliefs in his counterclaim.
In a Decision dated August 25, 1995, the PARAD declared the sale of the subject property between respondents as a nullity and ordered respondent DBP to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer of the parcel of land in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. It held that while the subject landholding is situated within a district classified as secondary commercial zone and its subdivision was judicially approved, the same was not duly converted to non-agricultural use as prescribed by law. Resultantly, the Register of Deeds of Naga City was ordered to cancel TCT No. 21190.
The PARAD declared the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by respondent DBP in favor of co-respondent Fabian Mendez contrary to law and therefore a nullity. It also ordered the DBP to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer in favor of the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform and surrender to the latter possession of subject landholding for coverage under E.O. No. 947. The purchase price of P1,200,000.00 given to co-respondent Fabian Mendez was also ordered to be returned.
Respondents moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision and argued that the parcel of land is no longer agricultural per Zoning Ordinance No. 603 adopted on December 20, 1978.
In a Resolution, the PARAD reversed its earlier ruling and declared that the parcel of land in question is duly classified and zonified as non-agricultural land in accordance with pertinent laws and guidelines.
Petitioner, thereafter, filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. In a Decision dated January 25, 2000, the DARAB reversed the PARADs ruling and held that there is a tenancy relationship between respondent DBP and petitioner as evidenced by the sharing of harvest between them. Thus, petitioner is not a mere caretaker but a bona fide tenant. It, however, did not sustain petitioners claim for redemption of the subject landholding since he failed to consign with the PARAD a reasonable amount to cover the price of the land.
Respondent Mendez filed a motion for reconsideration against said decision, while petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA advancing the argument that the PARAD and the DARAB erred and gravely abused their discretion in denying his right of redemption of the parcel of land. In a Decision dated November 29, 2001, the CA denied petitioners petition.
In a Resolution, the DARAB denied respondent Mendezs motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, respondent Mendez filed an appeal with the CA.
In a Decision dated July 9, 2009, the CA nullified and set aside the decision and resolution of the DARAB.
Unfazed, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the same was denied in a Resolution dated February 12, 2010. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUES:
1.Whether petitioner is a bona fide tenant of the subject property
2.Whether the PARAD and DARAB have jurisdiction over the present case.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
CIVIL LAW: Elements of a de jure tenancy
At the outset, it must be emphasized that in order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements,: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. All these requisites are necessary to create a tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant.
In this case, however, the facts substantiating a de jure tenancy are missing.
First, besides petitioners bare assertion that a tenancy relationship exists between him and respondent DBP, no other concrete proof was presented by petitioner to demonstrate the relationship of petitioner and respondent DBP as tenant and landowner. In fact, respondent DBP resolutely argued that petitioner is not a tenant but a mere caretaker of the subject landholding.
Second, the subject matter of the relationship is not an agricultural land but a commercial land. Section 3 (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), states that an agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined therein and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
As per Certification by the Office of the Zoning Administrator of Naga City, the subject landholding covered by TCT No. 21190 is classified as secondary commercial zone based on Zoning Ordinance No. 603 adopted on December 20, 1978 by the City Council and approved by the National Coordinating Council for Town Planning and Zoning, Human Settlements Commission on September 24, 1980. Thus, the reclassification of the subject landholding from agricultural to commercial removes it from the ambit of agricultural land over which petitioner claims a tenancy relationship is founded.
The reclassification of the subject landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural by the City Council of Naga City through a zoning ordinance is undoubtedly binding to remove it from the coverage of the CARL. In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, it was held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL including lands previously converted to non- agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than DAR. This rule has been reiterated in a number of subsequent cases. Despite claims that the areas have been devoted for agricultural production, the Court has upheld the non-agricultural classification made by the NHA over housing and resettlement projects, zoning ordinances passed by local government units classifying residential areas, and certifications over watershed areas issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). In addition, the power of the City Council of Naga City to adopt zoning ordinances is validly recognized under the law.
Furthermore, the reclassification of the subject landholding does not need a conversion clearance from the DAR for it to be legal since such reclassification occurred prior to 15 June 1988, the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. As it is, only land classifications or reclassifications which occur from 15 June 1988 onwards require conversion clearance from the DAR.
Third, the essential element of consent is absent. In the present case, no proof was presented that respondent DBP recognized or hired petitioner as its legitimate tenant. Besides petitioners self-serving assertions that he succeeded his father in tilling the subject landholding, no other concrete evidence was presented to prove consent of the landowner.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Jurisdiction of the PARAD and DARAB
Anent the second issue, we rule that the PARAD and the DARAB have no jurisdiction over petitioners claim.
Specifically, the PARAD and the DARAB have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARL under R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this wise: (d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
From the foregoing, it is clear that no agrarian dispute exists in the instant case, since what is involved is not an agricultural land and no tenancy relationship exists between petitioner and respondent DBP.
As aptly held by the CA, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. Perforce, the ruling of the PARAD, as well as the decision and resolution of the DARAB which were rendered without jurisdiction, are without force and effect.
WELLER JOPSON, Petitioner, v. FABIAN O. MENDEZ, JR. and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
PERALTA, J.:FACTS:
Spouses Laura S. Pascual and Jose H. Mendoza owned a parcel of land situated at Naga City, Camarines Sur. The property had an aggregate area of 101,045 square meters and was covered by TCT No. 687. On 26 December 1961, the said property was subdivided into sixty-three (63) lots through a judicially approved subdivision and became part of Laura Subdivision. Thus, TCT No. 687 was cancelled and, in its stead, TCT No. 986 (covering 31 lots), TCT No. 987 (covering 31 lots) and TCT No. 988 (covering 1 lot) were issued.
On 4 January 1992, spouses Laura and Jose conveyed to respondent DBP by way of dacion en pago, the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 986 which has an area of eight thousand nine hundred forty-six (8,946) square meters. The transfer was evidenced by a Deed of Conveyance of Real Estate Property in Payment of Debt. As a consequence, the Registry of Deeds of Naga City cancelled TCT No. 986 and issued TCT No. 1149 in favor of respondent DBP.
Sometime in the year 1990, respondent DBP published an Invitation to Bid for the conveyance of the subject landholding covered by TCT No. 1149. On 28 December 1990, the said property was sold for P1.2M to petitioner Fabian O. Mendez, Jr. as the highest bidder. Thus, TCT No. 1149 was cancelled and, in lieu of it, TCT No. 21190 was issued to respondent Mendez.
Sometime in 1991, a Complaint was filed by Weller Jopson with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Sur. It was directed against respondent DBP, respondent Mendez, and Leonardo Tominio for annulment of sale, preemption/redemption and reinstatement with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with damages.
In essence, petitioner alleged that he is a bona fide tenant-farmer of the parcel of land subject of the sale between respondent DBP and respondent Mendez; his father Melchor, was the original tenant of subject landholding appointed as such by the spouses Laura and Jose in 1947; in 1967, he succeeded his father in cultivating the subject landholding now covered by the present TCT No. 21190 when his father became ill; from 1967 up to December 1990, he laboriously tilled and cultivated the parcel of land and religiously shared the harvest with respondent DBP through its representatives or employees; on 20 December 1990, a certain Leonardo, acting upon the instructions of respondent Mendez, unlawfully entered the subject landholding and ejected him from the same; the sale of the subject landholding by respondent DBP to petitioner is void because the latter is not qualified to acquire the same under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657; the sale of the parcel of land is also violative of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 360, series of 1989, in relation to Section 1 of E.O. No. 407 dated 14 June 1990; he was deprived of his preferential right to buy the parcel of land he tenanted under reasonable terms and conditions as provided for by Section 11, R.A. No. 3844; in the alternative, he also has the right to redeem the parcel of land from petitioner at a reasonable price pursuant to Section 12, R.A. No. 3844; the forcible entry by Leonardo upon the instructions of respondent Mendez desecrated his right to security of tenure and deprivation of his livelihood; he is entitled to the award of actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses; a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent petitioner or his agents from disposing of the parcel of land.
In his Answer, respondent Mendez denied petitioners allegations and asseverated that the latter has no cause of action against him and is guilty of laches for not having questioned the auction sale of the parcel of land; the PARAD had no jurisdiction over the case because the parcel of land subject of the sale is no longer classified as agricultural and it is not located in an agricultural zone; as compulsory counterclaim, he is entitled to the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses; as cross-claim against respondent DBP, he prayed that in the event judgment is rendered in petitioners favor, respondent DBP should shoulder all the monetary awards that will be granted to petitioner, return to him the purchase price with interest, reimburse him all the expenses that he incurred relative to the purchase of the parcel of land and the improvements thereon, compensate him for lost business opportunities and pay him for the reliefs in his counterclaim.
In a Decision dated August 25, 1995, the PARAD declared the sale of the subject property between respondents as a nullity and ordered respondent DBP to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer of the parcel of land in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. It held that while the subject landholding is situated within a district classified as secondary commercial zone and its subdivision was judicially approved, the same was not duly converted to non-agricultural use as prescribed by law. Resultantly, the Register of Deeds of Naga City was ordered to cancel TCT No. 21190.
The PARAD declared the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by respondent DBP in favor of co-respondent Fabian Mendez contrary to law and therefore a nullity. It also ordered the DBP to execute the necessary Deed of Transfer in favor of the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform and surrender to the latter possession of subject landholding for coverage under E.O. No. 947. The purchase price of P1,200,000.00 given to co-respondent Fabian Mendez was also ordered to be returned.
Respondents moved for reconsideration of the aforesaid decision and argued that the parcel of land is no longer agricultural per Zoning Ordinance No. 603 adopted on December 20, 1978.
In a Resolution, the PARAD reversed its earlier ruling and declared that the parcel of land in question is duly classified and zonified as non-agricultural land in accordance with pertinent laws and guidelines.
Petitioner, thereafter, filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. In a Decision dated January 25, 2000, the DARAB reversed the PARADs ruling and held that there is a tenancy relationship between respondent DBP and petitioner as evidenced by the sharing of harvest between them. Thus, petitioner is not a mere caretaker but a bona fide tenant. It, however, did not sustain petitioners claim for redemption of the subject landholding since he failed to consign with the PARAD a reasonable amount to cover the price of the land.
Respondent Mendez filed a motion for reconsideration against said decision, while petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA advancing the argument that the PARAD and the DARAB erred and gravely abused their discretion in denying his right of redemption of the parcel of land. In a Decision dated November 29, 2001, the CA denied petitioners petition.
In a Resolution, the DARAB denied respondent Mendezs motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, respondent Mendez filed an appeal with the CA.
In a Decision dated July 9, 2009, the CA nullified and set aside the decision and resolution of the DARAB.
Unfazed, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the same was denied in a Resolution dated February 12, 2010. Hence, this present petition.
ISSUES:
1.Whether petitioner is a bona fide tenant of the subject property
2.Whether the PARAD and DARAB have jurisdiction over the present case.
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
CIVIL LAW: Elements of a de jure tenancy
At the outset, it must be emphasized that in order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its indispensable elements,: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. All these requisites are necessary to create a tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant.
In this case, however, the facts substantiating a de jure tenancy are missing.
First, besides petitioners bare assertion that a tenancy relationship exists between him and respondent DBP, no other concrete proof was presented by petitioner to demonstrate the relationship of petitioner and respondent DBP as tenant and landowner. In fact, respondent DBP resolutely argued that petitioner is not a tenant but a mere caretaker of the subject landholding.
Second, the subject matter of the relationship is not an agricultural land but a commercial land. Section 3 (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), states that an agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined therein and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
As per Certification by the Office of the Zoning Administrator of Naga City, the subject landholding covered by TCT No. 21190 is classified as secondary commercial zone based on Zoning Ordinance No. 603 adopted on December 20, 1978 by the City Council and approved by the National Coordinating Council for Town Planning and Zoning, Human Settlements Commission on September 24, 1980. Thus, the reclassification of the subject landholding from agricultural to commercial removes it from the ambit of agricultural land over which petitioner claims a tenancy relationship is founded.
The reclassification of the subject landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural by the City Council of Naga City through a zoning ordinance is undoubtedly binding to remove it from the coverage of the CARL. In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, it was held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL including lands previously converted to non- agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than DAR. This rule has been reiterated in a number of subsequent cases. Despite claims that the areas have been devoted for agricultural production, the Court has upheld the non-agricultural classification made by the NHA over housing and resettlement projects, zoning ordinances passed by local government units classifying residential areas, and certifications over watershed areas issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). In addition, the power of the City Council of Naga City to adopt zoning ordinances is validly recognized under the law.
Furthermore, the reclassification of the subject landholding does not need a conversion clearance from the DAR for it to be legal since such reclassification occurred prior to 15 June 1988, the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. As it is, only land classifications or reclassifications which occur from 15 June 1988 onwards require conversion clearance from the DAR.
Third, the essential element of consent is absent. In the present case, no proof was presented that respondent DBP recognized or hired petitioner as its legitimate tenant. Besides petitioners self-serving assertions that he succeeded his father in tilling the subject landholding, no other concrete evidence was presented to prove consent of the landowner.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Jurisdiction of the PARAD and DARAB
Anent the second issue, we rule that the PARAD and the DARAB have no jurisdiction over petitioners claim.
Specifically, the PARAD and the DARAB have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARL under R.A. No. 6657. Thus, the jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the implementation of agrarian laws. Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this wise: (d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
From the foregoing, it is clear that no agrarian dispute exists in the instant case, since what is involved is not an agricultural land and no tenancy relationship exists between petitioner and respondent DBP.
As aptly held by the CA, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties. Perforce, the ruling of the PARAD, as well as the decision and resolution of the DARAB which were rendered without jurisdiction, are without force and effect.
