Author: Patrick V.

Arcellana

Alcantara v Reta Jr

Petition: Petition for review on certiorari
Petitioner: Edilberto Alcantara et al
Respondent: Cornelio Reta Jr
Ponencia: Pardo, J

DOCTRINE: Construction of a house on the land of another to facilitate the
gathering of fruits would constitute a personal easement under article 614 of
the CC.

FACTS:
1. Alcantara filed a case for the exercise of right of first refusal under PD
1517 in RTC with Reta Jr as defendant

2. He contends that they were tenants in the land and that it has been
converted to a commercial center. They said that they were threatened to be
ejected and asserts their right to first refusal in accordance with the said PD
as legitimate tenants.

3. They said that the amicable settlement of Reta and Roble was void in
violation of PD 1517. However Reta contends that the land is beyond the
reach of PD 1517 since it has not been proclaimed as an Urban Land reform
zone.

4. RTC dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiffs to pay Reta. Thus
the appeals.

ISSUE:
1. WON petitioners have a right of first refusal under PD 1517

PROVISIONS: Article 614, CC

Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or
of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not
belong

RULING + RATIO:
1. NO.
The area has been proved not to be proclaimed an ULRZ. In fact,
petitioners requested that the land they are occupying be declared as such.
The request was referred to the General manager of the National Housing
Authority and then to the mayor of Davao City. The request would not have
been necessary if it was already an ULRZ. Given this, they cannot claim any
right over it.

The three requisites to be able to avail of these rights are:

1. A legitimate tenant for 10 years or more
2. Must have built his home on the land by contract and
3. has resided continuously for the last 10 years.

Those not complying with the said requisites cannot be deemed legitimate
tenants and are therefore not entitled to the right of first refusal. Reta allowed
Roble to use 62 coconut trees for gathering Tuba. This arrangement is in the
nature of a usufruct which gives a right to enjoy the property of another with
the obligation of preserving its form and substance.

Roble was also allowed to construct his house to facilitate the
gathering of the tuba and this is in the nature of a personal easement under
article 614 of the CC. Regardless of the validity of the amicable settlement,
the conclusion would still be the same since the agreement was of a
usufruct. Roble thus is not a legitimate tenant under PD 1517.




FALLO: The court denies this petition and affirms the decision of the CA and
the resolution denying reconsideration.