Milestone Realty and Co Case Digest Gr No 135999

8/9/2019 Milestone Realty and Co Case Digest Gr No 135999

1/8

MILESTONE REALTY and CO., INC. and WILLIAM L.PEREZ, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DELIA RAZONPEÑA and RAYMUNDO EUGENIO, respondents.

D E C I S I O NThe facts as culled from the records are as follows:

Spouses Alfonso Olympia and Carolina Zacarias and Spouses Claro Zacarias andCristina Lorenzo were the co-owners of an agricultural land identified as Lot 66 of the !alinta "state# Said lot has an area of $%&'(% s)uare meters& co*ered +y Transfer Certificate of Title ,TCT .o# $6(/& located at 0aruhatan& 1alenzuela& 2ulacan& now1alenzuela City# "*entually& Carolina +ecame the owner of the property +y *irtue of a3eed of "4tra5udicial Settlement e4ecuted on Octo+er '& /'6 +y the heirs of Alfonso Olympia& one of whom is rancisco Olympia& on their respecti*e shares after

Alfonso7s death and +y an Affida*it of Settlement e4ecuted on 8une $9& //$ +y thespouses Claro and Cristina Zacarias on their shares in the property#

!eanwhile& Anacleto e;a who was a tenant of the property and a holder of aCertificate of Agricultural Leasehold& had a house constructed on the lot#


2/8


3/8

$# 3eclaring the series of purchase and sale of the landholding in )uestion as illegal& hence& nulland *oidF

%# 3irecting the >egister of 3eeds to cancel TCT .o# 1-$69=? and all su+se)uent titleso+tained thereafter o*er the landholding named under illiam L# erez and !ilestone>ealty and Co#& Bnc#F

9# Allowing 3elia >azon e;a to e4ercise her right of redemption o*er the land within the prescri+ed period granted +y lawF

?# "n5oining all >espondents-Appellees to desist from further distur+ing 3elia >azon e;a inthe peaceful possession and culti*ation of the landF

6# 3irecting the 3A>-3O8 TasG orce on Bllegal Con*ersion to file appropriate charges +eforethe Special Agrarian Court as regards the criminal aspect of this case#

SO O>3">"3# D=E

Bn re*ersing the A>A37s decision& the 3A>A2 noted that Carolina7s affida*it

did not show any categorical admission that she made her choice within the one ,month period e4cept to state that @when Anacleto died& the right of the deceased wasinherited +y "milio e;a which could only mean that she recognized "milio e;a +yforce of circumstance under a ne+ulous time frame#D/E

Bn a petition for re*iew to the Court of Appeals& the latter affirmed the 3A>A27sdecision& thus:

e are con*inced& +eyond ca*il& in the present recourse& that the etitioners CarolinaOlympia and rancisco Olympia failed to choose& within the statutory period therefor&

any tenant in su+stitution of Anacleto e;a& the erstwhile deceased tenant on thelandholding& and that& without prior or simultaneous notice to ri*ate >espondent3elia e;a& the etitioners made their choice of etitioner "milio e;a as su+stitutetenant only in 8anuary& //$& after they had agreed to sell the property to the etitioner !ilestone >ealty I Co#& Bnc#

B. SJ!& then& e find no re*ersi+le error committed +y the 3A>A2 under itsoppunged 3ecision#

B. T"HOB.H& the etition is denied due course and is

here+y dismissed# The appealed 3ecision is here+y AB>!"3# ith costs againstthe etitioners#

SO O>3">"3#D(E

Su+se)uently& petitioners filed a !otion for >econsideration of the CA7sdecision# Said motion was denied on Octo+er $& //=#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn10


4/8

A1" A2JS"O 3BSC>"TBO. A!OJ.TB.H TO LAC0 O> "KC"SS O 8J>BS3BCTBO.B. T"J2LBC ACT %=99 2 AZO. "MA 3"C"AS"3 "SO.3".T COJ>T O A"ALS ">>"3 B. 3"CLA>B.H T BLLBA! L# ">"Z& A.3

2 T TO "TBTBO."> !BL"STO." >"ALT I CO#& B.C# AS .JLL A.3 1OB3& A.3 B. O>3">B.H T#A# %=99& as amendedF

$# hether or not 3elia >azon e;a was a bona fide or de jure tenant o*er thelandholding in )uestion to +e accorded the alleged rights to security of tenure and of redemption under the agrarian reform lawsF

%# hether or not "milio e;a *alidly renounced or otherwise caused thee4tinction of his tenancy rights o*er the su+5ect propertyF

9# hether or not the sales of the su+5ect property +y Carolina Zacarias toilliam erez and +y the latter to !ilestone were null and *oid& hence merited thedeclaration of nullity and cancellation of the respondents7 respecti*e titlesF

?# hether or not illegal con*ersion was committed +y !ilestone#Bn sum& we find the following rele*ant issues now for our resolution:

# hether or not 3elia >azon e;a has a right of first priority o*er "milio e;ain succeeding to the tenancy rights of Anacleto o*er the su+5ect landholding#

$# hether or not the sales of the su+5ect lots +y Carolina Zacarias to illiamerez and then to !ilestone are null and *oid#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn12


5/8

At the outset& it +ears stressing that there appears to +e no dispute as to tenancyrelationship +etween Carolina Zacarias and the late Anacleto e;a# The contro*ersycenters on who is the rightful and legal successor to Anacleto7s tenancyrights# >ele*ant to the resolution of the first issue is Section / of >epu+lic Act .o#%=99& otherwise Gnown as the Code of Agrarian >eforms& which pro*ides as follows:

S"C# /# Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity ofthe Parties. - Bn case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee toworG his landholding& the leasehold shall continue +etween the agricultural lessor andthe person who can culti*ate the landholding personally& chosen +y the agriculturallessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity& from among thefollowing: ,a the sur*i*ing spouseF ,+ the eldest direct descendant +y consanguinityFor ,c the ne4t eldest descendant or descendants in the order of theirage: Provided That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agriculturallessee occurs during the agricultural year& such choice shall +e e4ercised at the end ofthat agricultural year: Provided further & That in the e*ent the agricultural lessor failsto e4ercise his choice within the periods herein pro*ided& the priority shall +e inaccordance with the order herein esta+lished#

Bn case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor& the leasehold shall +ind his legal heirs#

etitioners contend that Section / does not re)uire any form or manner in whichthe choice should +e made#D%E They assail the Court of Appeals for hea*ily relying onthe findings of the 3A>A2 that there was no con*incing proof that Carolinae4ercised her right to choose from among the )ualified heirs a replacement for thedeceased tenant&D9E when in fact a choice was made# Bn support thereof& petitionersin*oGe Carolina7s affida*it and her Answer to the complaint in the A>A3& +othdated .o*em+er 6& //$ where Carolina recognized "milio e;a as the successor toAnacleto7s tenancy rights# etitioners argued that 3elia could not ha*e )ualified as asuccessor-tenant to Anacleto due to lacG of personal culti*ation#D?E urther& she had not +een paying rent on the land#

>esponding to petitioners7 contentions& respondents argue that Carolina did notchoose the successor to Anacleto7s tenancy rights within one month from the death of

Anacleto# >espondents note that it was only after the lapse of two ,$ years from thedeath of Anacleto on e+ruary '& //(& that +oth Carolina and "milio claimed intheir respecti*e affida*its that "milio inherited the rights of Anacleto as a tenant#D6E According to respondents& such inaction to maGe a choice within the time framere)uired +y law is e)ui*alent to wai*er on Carolina7s part to choose a su+stitutetenant#D'E Also& it appears that Carolina made the choice in fa*or of "milio e;a only

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn17


6/8

+y force of circumstance& i#e#& when she was in the process of negotiating the sale of the land to petitioners erez and !ilestone#D=E

On this score& we agree with pri*ate respondents# As found +y +oth the 3A>A2and the Court of Appeals& Carolina had failed to e4ercise her right to choose a

su+stitute for the deceased tenant& from among those )ualified& within the statutory period#D/E .o cogent reason compels us to distur+ the findings of the Court of Appeals# As a general rule& findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final andconclusi*e and cannot +e re*iewed on appeal +y the Supreme Court& pro*ided they are +orne out +y the record or +ased on su+stantial e*idence#D$(E

Section / of >epu+lic Act .o# %=99 is clear and une)ui*ocal in pro*iding for therules on succession to tenancy rights# A close e4amination of the pro*ision lea*es nodou+t as to its rationale of pro*iding for continuity in agricultural leasehold relation incase of death or incapacity of a party# To this end& it pro*ides that in case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to worG his landholding& the leaseholdshall continue +etween the agricultural lessor and the person who can culti*ate thelandholding personally# Bn the same *ein& the leasehold shall +ind the legal heirs of the agricultural lessor in case of death or permanent incapacity of the latter# Bt is toachie*e this continuity of relationship that the agricultural lessor is mandated +y lawto choose a successor-tenant within one month from the death or incapacity of theagricultural lessee from among the following: , sur*i*ing spouseF ,$ eldest directdescendant +y consanguinityF or ,% the ne4t eldest direct descendant or descendantsin the order of their age# Should the lessor fail to e4ercise his choice within onemonth from the death of the tenant& the priority shall +e in accordance with theaforementioned order# Bn !anuel vs. "ourt of Appeals&D$E we ruled that:

Agricultural leasehold relationship is not e4tinguished +y the death or incapacity ofthe parties# Bn case the agricultural lessee dies or is incapacitated& the leaseholdrelation shall continue +etween the agricultural lessor and any of the legal heirs of theagricultural lessee who can culti*ate the landholding personally& in the order of preference pro*ided under Section / of >epu+lic Act %=99& as chosen +y the lessorwithin one month from such death or permanent incapacity# Since petitioner Rodolfo

Manuel failed to exercise his right of choice within the statutory period, Edwardo’s

widow Enriqueta, who is first in the order of preference and who continued

working on the landholding upon her husband’s death, succeeded hi asagricultural lessee. Thus& "nri)ueta is su+rogated to the rights of her hus+and andcould e4ercise e*ery right "duardo had as agricultural lessee& including the rights of pre-emption and redemption#

Applying Section / of >epu+lic Act %=99& in the light of pre*ailing 5urisprudence&it is undenia+le that respondent 3elia >azon e;a& the sur*i*ing spouse of the originaltenant& Anacleto e;a& is the first in the order of preference to succeed to the tenancy

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn21


7/8


8/8

landholding& without pre5udice howe*er to the tenancy rights and the right of redemption of 3elia >azon e;a# Bn !anuel &D$6E we held that the tenancy relationshipis not affected or se*ered +y the change of ownership# The new owner is under theo+ligation to respect and maintain the tenant7s landholding# Bn turn& 3elia >azone;a& as the successor tenant& has the legal right of redemption# This right of redemption is statutory in character# Bt attaches to a particular landholding +yoperation of law#D$'E

inally& as to the )uestion of illegal con*ersion of the land& suffice it to state thatsuch determination is not within the 5urisdiction of this Court and is not proper in a petition for re*iew on certiorari as it re)uires e*aluation and e4amination of pertinentfacts#

WHEREFORE& the petition is A>TBALL H>A.T"3# The assailed decisionof the Court of Appeals in CA-H#># S .o# %//=' is AB>!"3 in so far as itrecognizes 3elia >azon e;a as the successor of Anacleto e;a as the tenant& there+yallowing her to e4ercise her right of redemption o*er the land within the prescri+ed period granted +y law# "1">S"3 and S"TASB3" insofar as it declared the sale of said landholding null and*oid# IN LIE# T"23"CLA>"3 1ALB3& SJ28"CT TO TBHBH"3"!TBO. +y the T".A.T-L"SS""& pri*ate respondent 3elia >azon e;a#

.o pronouncements as to costs

SO ORDERED.

$ellosillo %"hair&an' !endo(a and De Leon )r. )). concur#"orona ). no part in the deli+erations#
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/apr2002/135999.htm#_edn27

Milestone Realty and Co Case Digest Gr No 135999

Documents

Transcript of Milestone Realty and Co Case Digest Gr No 135999