TodayisWednesday,October19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.88113October23,1992
SPOUSESTITUSL.ENDAYAandGLENDATRINIDADSPOUSESRICOL.ENDAYAandNANETTEAQUINO
andSPOUSESJOSEPHINEL.ENDAYAandLEANDROBANTUG,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALSandPEDROFIDELI,respondents.

ROMERO,J.:
AssailedinthispetitionforreviewoncertiorariisthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA.G.R.No.15724dated
April26,19891reversingthejudgmentoftheRegionalTrialCourtofTanauan,Batangas(Branch6)inCivilCaseNo.T430
2 and holding that private respondent is an agricultural lessee in the land of petitioner whose security of tenure must be

respectedbythelatter.

Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned a piece of agricultural land consisting of 20,200
squaremeterssituatedatSanPioquinto,Malvar,Batangas,devotedtoriceandcorn.Asfarbackas1934,private
respondentFidelihasbeencultivatingthislandasatenantoftheSpousesrespondentFidelihasbeencultivating
thislandasatenantoftheSpousesSanDiegounderafiftyfifty(5050)sharingagreement.Thisfact,petitionersdo
notdispute.
OnMay2,1974,aleasecontractwasexecutedbetweentheSpousesSanDiegoandoneReginoCassanovafora
periodoffouryearsfromMay1974uptoMay1978.3TheleasecontractobligedCassanovatopayP400.00perhectare
perannumandgavehimtheauthoritytooverseetheplantingofcropsontheland. 4Privaterespondentsignedthislease
contractasoneoftwowitnesses.5

TheleasecontractwassubsequentlyrenewedtolastuntilMay1980buttherentalwasraisedtoP600.00.Again,
privaterespondentsignedthecontractaswitness.6
During the entire duration of the lease contract between the Spouses San Diego and Cassanova, private
respondentcontinuouslycultivatedtheland,sharingequallywithCassanovathenetproduceoftheharvests.
OnJanuary6,1980,theSpousesSanDiegosoldthelandtopetitionersforthesumofP26,000.00.Thesalewas
registeredwiththeRegisterofDeedsofBatangasandaTransferCertificateofTitlewasdulyissuedonJanuary7,
1981. 7 Private respondent continued to farm the land although petitioners claim that private respondent was told
immediatelyafterthesaletovacatetheland.8Inanycase,itisundisputedthatprivaterespondentdepositedwiththeLuzonDevelopmentBankan
amountofaboutP8,000.00aspartialpaymentofthelandowner'sshareintheharvestfortheyears1980until1985.9

Duetopetitionerspersistentdemandforprivaterespondenttovacatetheland,privaterespondentfiledinApril1985
a complaint 10with the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas praying that he be declared the agricultural tenant of
petitioners.

Aftertrial,thetrialcourtdecidedinfavorofpetitionersbyholdingthatprivaterespondentisnotanagriculturallessee
ofthelandnowownedbypetitioners.ThedispositiveportionoftheRTCdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendereddismissingplaintiff'scomplainttobedeclaredatenantof
thelandholdingconsistingof20,200squaremeters,locatedatSanPioquinto,Malvar,Batangas,and

ownedbythedefendantsorderingPedroFidelitovacatethelandholdingdeliverpossessionthereofto
thedefendantsandorderingtheamountofP8,000.00depositedunderAccountNo.2940029826Civil
CaseNo.T430tobewithdrawnanddeliveredtothedefendants,No.pronouncementastocosts.
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedtheRTCdecisionanddeclaredprivaterespondenttobetheagricultural
lesseeofthesubjectlandholding.Hence,thispetitionwhereinprivaterespondent'sstatusasanagriculturallessee
andhissecurityoftenureassucharebeingdisputedbypetitioners.
PetitionersimpugntheCourtofAppeals'declarationthatprivaterespondentisanagriculturallesseeofthesubject
landholding contending that when the original landowners, the Spouses San Diego, entered into a lease contract
with Regino Cassanova, the agricultural leasehold relationship between the Spouses San Diego and private
respondent, the existence of which petitioners do not dispute, was thereby terminated. Petitioners argue that a
landowner cannot have a civil law lease contract with one person and at the same time have an agricultural
leasehold agreement with another over the same land. It is further argued that because private respondent
consented to the lease contract between the Spouses San Diego and Cassanova, signing as he did the lease
agreementandtherenewalcontractaswitnessthereof,privaterespondenthaswaivedhisrightsasanagricultural
lessee.
Thesecontentionsarewithoutmerit.
R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended By R.A. No. 6839 (1971), which is the relevant law governing the events at
hand, abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines from 1971 and established the agricultural leasehold
system by operation of law. 11 Section 7 of the said law gave agricultural lessees security of tenure by providing the
following:"Theagriculturalleaseholdrelationonceestablishedshallconferupontheagriculturallesseetherighttocontinue
workingonthelandholdinguntilsuchleaseholdrelationisextinguished.Theagriculturallesseeshallbeentitledtosecurityof
tenureonhislandholdingandcannotbeejectedtherefromunlessauthorizedbytheCourtforcauseshereinprovided." 12
Thefactthatthelandownerenteredintoacivilleasecontractoverthesubjectlandholdingandgavethelesseetheauthority
tooverseethefarmingoftheland,aswasdoneinthiscase,isnotamongthecausesprovidedbylawfortheextinguishment
oftheagriculturalleaseholdrelation.13Onthecontrary,Section10ofthelawprovides:

Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. The
agriculturalleaseholdrelationunderthiscodeshallnotbeextinguishedbymereexpirationoftheterm
orperiodinaleaseholdcontractnorbythesale,alienationortransferofthelegalpossessionofthe
landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the
landholding,thepurchaserortransfereethereofshallbesubrogatedtotherightsandsubstitutedtothe
obligationsoftheagriculturallessor.
Hence,transactionsinvolvingtheagriculturallandoverwhichanagriculturalleaseholdsubsistsresultinginchange
ofownership,e.g.,sale,ortransferoflegalpossession,suchaslease,willnotterminatetherightoftheagricultural
lessee who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the
landowner'ssuccessorininterest.14
IllustrativeofthelegalprinciplesoutlinedaboveisCatorcev.CourtofAppeals15wherethepersonholdingamortgage
over the farm land subject of an agricultural leasehold took possession thereof pursuant to the mortgage and ousted the
agricultural lessee. Upon complaint for reinstatement filed by the agricultural lessee, the then Court of Agrarian Relations
ordered the mortgagee to deliver possession over the land to the agricultural lessee but his decision was reversed by the
Court of Appeals. In reversing the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstating the Agrarian Court's decision, the Court,
through Justice MelencioHerrera, noted, among other considerations, that "tenants are guaranteed security of tenure,
meaning,thecontinuedenjoymentandpossessionoftheirlandholdingexceptwhentheirdispossessionhadbeenauthorized
byvirtueofafinalandexecutoryjudgment,whichisnotsointhecaseatbar." 16Implicitinthedecisionistherecognition
that the transfer of possession to the mortgage did not terminate the agricultural leasehold nor prejudice the security of
tenureoftheagriculturallessee.

Closer, to although not identical with the factual setting of the case at bar is Novesterasv. Court of Appeals. 17
Petitionerinsaidcasewasasharetenantoftherespondentovertwoparcelsofland.Respondententeredintoacontractof
civilleasewithRosendaPorculasforatermofthreeyears.Porculasdidnotfarmthelandhimselfbutleftittopetitionertotill
the land. After the expiration of the lease between respondent and Porculas, petitioner entered into an agreement
denominatedasacontractofcivilleasewithrespondent.Onexpirationofthisleasecontract,respondentdeniedpetitioner
possessionovertheland.Resolvingtherightsandobligationsoftheparties,theCourt,throughJusticeParas,heldthatthe
petitioner therein became an agricultural tenant of respondent by virtue of R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended by R.A. No
6839 (1971). The lease contract between the respondent and Porculas did not terminate the agricultural leasehold
relationshipbetweenpetitionerandrespondent.Ifatall,thesaidleaseagreement,coupledbythefactthatPorculasallowed
petitionertocontinuecultivatinginhiscapacityastenantofthesubjectlandholding,servedtostrengthenpetitioner'ssecurity
oftenureasanagriculturaltenantofthefarmlandinquestion.Accordingly,thesubsequentcontractbetweenpetitionerand
respondentdenominatedasacontractofcivilleasewasheldbytheCourttobeinfactanagriculturalleaseholdagreement.

Again, in Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc.(COCOMA)v.Court of Appeals, 18 it was held that the
agriculturalleaseholdispreserved,notwithstandingthetransferofthelegalpossessionofthesubjectlandholding,withthe
transferee,COCOMAinthatcase,beingaccountabletotheagriculturallesseesfortheirrights.TheCourt,throughJustice
Padilla,summarizedtheruleasfollows:

There is also no question that, in this case, there was a transfer of the legal possession of the land
from one landholder to another (Fule to petitioner COCOMA). In connection therewith, Republic Act
3844,Sec.10states:
Sec.10.AgriculturalLeaseholdRelationNotExtinguishedbyExpirationofPeriod,etc.
The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere
expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells,
alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, purchaser or transferee
thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the
agriculturallessor.
Further,inseveralcases,thisCourtsustainedthepreservationofthelandholdertenantrelationship,in
casesoftransferoflegalpossession:
...incaseoftransferorincaseoflease,asintheinstantcase,thetenancyrelationship
between the landowner and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well
beingofthetenantorprotecthimfrombeingunjustlydispossessedbythetransfereeor
purchaserofthelandinotherwords,thepurposeofthelawinquestionistomaintainthe
tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land or afford them protection
againstunjustifieddismissalfromtheirholdings.(Primerov.CAR,101Phil.675)
Itisourconsideredjudgment,sincethereturnbythelesseeoftheleasedpropertytothe
lessorupontheexpirationofthecontractinvolvesalsoatransferoflegalpossession,and
takingintoaccountthemanifestintentofthelawmakingbodyinamendingthelaw,i.e.,to
providethetenantwithsecurityoftenureinallcasesoftransferoflegalpossession,that
theinstantcasefallswithinandisgovernedbytheprovisionsofSection9ofRepublicAct
1199,asamendedbyRepublicAct2263.(Joyav.Pareja,106Phil,645).
. . . that the tenant may proceed against the transferee of the land to enforce obligation
incurredbytheformerlandholdersuchobligation...fallsupontheassigneeortransferee
of the land pursuant to Sec. 9 abovementioned. Since respondent are in turn free to
proceedagainsttheformerlandholderforreimbursement,itisnotiniquitoustoholdthem
responsibletothetenantforsaidobligations.Moreover,itisthepurposeofRepublicAct
1199,particularlySec.9thereof,toinsurethattherightofthetenanttoreceivehislawful
shareoftheproducetoreceivethislawfulshareoftheproduceofthelandisunhampered
bythetransferofsaidlandfromonelandholdertoanother.(Almarinezv.Potenciano,120
Phil.
1154.).19
In the instant case, private respondent has been cultivating the subject farm landholding with a fiftyfifty (5050)
sharingarrangementwiththeSpousesSanDiego,petitioners'predecessorsininterest.ThepassageofR.A.6839
in1971,amendingR.A.3844(1963),securedtoprivaterespondentalltherightspertainingtoanagriculturallessee.
The execution of a lease agreement between the Spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova in 1974 did not
terminate private respondent's status as an agricultural lessee. The fact that private respondent knew of, and
consentedto,thesaidleasecontractbysigningaswitnesstotheagreementmaynotbeconstruedasawaiverof
his rights as an agricultural lessee. On the contrary, it was his right to know about the lease contract since, as a
result of the agreement, he had to deal with a new person instead of with the owners directly as he used to. No
provisionmaybefoundintheleasecontractandtherenewalcontractevenintimatingthatprivaterespondenthas
waivedhisrightsasanagriculturallessee.Militatingagainstpetitioners'theorythattheagriculturalleaseholdwas
terminated or waived upon the execution of the lease agreement between the San Diegos and Cassanova is the
factthelatterdesistedfrompersonallycultivatingthelandbutleftittoprivaterespondenttoundertakethefarming,
theproduceofthelandbeingsharedbetweenCassanovaandprivaterespondent,whiletheformerpaidP400.00
andlaterP600.00perhectareperannumtotheSanDiegos,asagreeduponintheleasecontract.
Petitioners,however,insistthatprivaterespondentcannolongerbeconsideredtheagriculturallesseeoftheirfarm
landbecauseaftertheypurchasedthelandfromtheSpousesSanDiegoin1980,privaterespondentdidnotsecure
theirpermissiontocultivatethelandasagriculturallessee.
It is true that the Court has ruled that agricultural tenancy is not created where the consent the true and lawful
owners is absent. 20 But this doctrine contemplates a situation where an untenanted farm land is cultivated without the
landowner'sknowledgeoragainstherwilloralthoughpermissiontoworkonthefarmwasgiven,therewasnointentionto

constitutetheworkerastheagriculturallesseeofthefarmland.21Therulefindsnoapplicationinthecaseatbarwherethe
petitionersaresuccessorsininteresttoatenantedlandoverwhichanagriculturalleaseholdhaslongbeenestablished.The
consent given by the original owners to constitute private respondent as the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding
bindsprivaterespondentswhomassuccessorsininterestoftheSpousesSanDiego,stepintothelatter'sshows,acquiring
notonlytheirrightsbutalsotheirobligations.22

ContradictingtheirpositionthatnoagriculturalleaseholdexistsoverthelandtheyacquiredfromtheSpousesSan
Diego, petitioners also pray for the termination of the tenancy of private respondent allegedly due to: (a) non
paymentoftheagriculturalleaserentaland(b)animositybetweenthelandownersandtheagriculturallessee.The
Court,however,observesthatnowhereinthepetitioners'Answertoprivaterespondent'sComplaintorintheother
pleadingsfiledbeforethetrialcourtdidpetitionersallegegroundsfortheterminationoftheagriculturalleasehold.
Wellsettledistherulethatissuesnotraisedinthetrialcourtcannotberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.23
In fine, the Court, after a painstaking examination of the entire records of the case and taking into account the
applicablelaw,aswellastherelevantjurisprudence,rulesthatprivaterespondentistheagriculturallesseeoverthe
landownedbypetitioners.Assuch,privaterespondent'ssecurityoftenuremustberespectedbypetitioners.
TheCourt,however,notesfromtherecordsofthecasethatprivaterespondenthasunilaterallydecidedtopayonly
25%ofthenetharveststopetitioners. 24 Since the agreement of private respondent with the Spouses San Diego, the
original owners, was for a fiftyfifty (5050) sharing of the net produce of the land, the same sharing agreement should be
maintainedbetweenpetitionersandprivaterespondents,withoutprejudicetoarenegotiationofthetermsoftheleasehold
agreement.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals
AFFIRMED.Privaterespondentisherebyorderedtopaythebackrentalsfrom1980until1992plusinterestatthe
legal rate. An accounting of the production of the subject landholding is to be made by private respondent to the
RegionalTrialCourtofTanauan,Batangaswhichshalldeterminetheamountduetopetitionersbasedontherate
orderedabove.
SOORDERED.
Gutierrez,Jr.,Bidin,Davide,Jr.andMelo,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeAlfredoM.MarigomenwiththeconcurrenceofAssociateJustices
JosueN.BellosilloandAliciaV.SempioDiy.
2PennedbyJudgeFlordelisOzaetaNavarro.
3Annex"D"tothePetitionRollo,p.39.
4Ibid.
5Rollo,p.40.
6Annex"E"tothePetitionRollo,p.41.
7Annex"A"tothePetitionRollo,p.33.
8Petition,p.3Rollo,p.8.
9Annex"J"tothePetitionRollo,p.66.
10Annex"F"tothePetitionRollo,p.42.
11Section4and5ofR.A.No3844(1963),asamendedbyR.A.No.6839(1971),provide:
Sec.4.AbolitionofAgriculturalShareTenancy.Agriculturalsharetenancy,ashereindefined,is
herebydeclaredtobecontrarytopublicpolicyandshallbeabolished...
Sec.5.EstablishmentofAgriculturalLeaseholdRelation.Theagriculturalleaseholdrelationshallbe
establishedbyoperationoflawinaccordancewithSectionfourofthisCode,inothercases,either
orallyorinwriting,expresslyorimpliedly.

12.Thelatestagrarianreformlaw,R.A.No.6657(1988),otherwiseknownastheComprehensive
AgrarianReformLawof1988,providesforthecontinuationandmaintenanceoftherighttosecurityof
tenureofagriculturallesseesacquiredpriortothepassageofthelaw.Section6,paragraph3oftheAct
provides:"Inallcases,thesecurityoftenureofthefarmersorfarmworkersonthelandpriortothe
approvalofthisActshallberespected.
13Section8ofR.A.No.3844,asamended,provides:
Sec.8.ExtinguishmentofAgriculturalLeaseholdRelation.Theagriculturalleaseholdrelation
establishedunderthisCodeshallbeextinguishedby:
(1)Abandonmentofthelandholdingwithouttheknowledgeoftheagriculturallessor
(2)Voluntarysurrenderofthelandholdingbytheagriculturallessee,writtennoticeofwhichshallbe
servedthreemonthsinadvanceor
(3)AbsenceofthepersonsunderSectionninetosucceedtothelesseeintheeventofdeathor
permanentincapacityofthelessee.
14SeeTanalgov.CourtofAppeals,G.RNo.L34508,April30,1980,97SCRA421.SeeAlsoPrimero
v.CAR,101Phil.675(1957).
15G.R.No.L59762,May11,1984,129SCRA210.
16Id.,at215.Citationsomitted.
17G.R.No.L36654,March31,1987,149SCRA47.
18G.RNos.L4628183,August19,1988,164SCRA568.
19Id.,at584585.
20Berenguerv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.L60287,August17,1988,164SCRA431.
21Foranillustrationofthelastmentionedsituation,seeTuazonv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.Nos.L
60287,August17,1988,164SCRA431.
22Tanalgoc.CourtofAppeals,supra,note14.
23Matienzov.Servidad,G.R.No.28135,September10,1981,107SCRA276Reparations
Commissionv.VisayanPackingCorporation,G.R.No.30712,February6,1991,193SCRA531.
24RTCDecision,p.6Rollo,p.105.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation