Republic of the Philippines The lease contract was subsequently renewed to

SUPREME COURT last until May 1980 but the rental was raised to
Manila P600.00. Again, private respondent signed the
contract as witness. 6
THIRD DIVISION
During the entire duration of the lease contract
between the Spouses San Diego and Cassanova,
private respondent continuously cultivated the
G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992 land, sharing equally with Cassanova the net
produce of the harvests.
SPOUSES TITUS L. ENDAYA and GLENDA
TRINIDAD; SPOUSES RICO L. ENDAYA and On January 6, 1980, the Spouses San Diego sold
NANETTE AQUINO; and SPOUSES the land to petitioners for the sum of
JOSEPHINE L. ENDAYA and LEANDRO P26,000.00. The sale was registered with the
BANTUG, petitioners, Register of Deeds of Batangas and a Transfer
vs. Certificate of Title was duly issued on January 7,
COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO 1981. 7 Private respondent continued to farm
FIDELI, respondents. the land although petitioners claim that private
respondent was told immediately after the sale
to vacate the land. 8 In any case, it is undisputed that
private respondent deposited with the Luzon Development Bank an
amount of about P8,000.00 as partial payment of the landowner's
ROMERO, J.: share in the harvest for the years 1980 until 1985. 9

Assailed in this petition for review Due to petitioners persistent demand for private
on certiorari is the decision of the Court of respondent to vacate the land, private
Appeals in CA-.G.R. No. 15724 dated April 26, respondent filed in April 1985 a complaint 10 with
19891 reversing the judgment of the Regional the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas
Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas (Branch 6) in praying that he be declared the agricultural
Civil Case No. T-4302 and holding that private tenant of petitioners.
respondent is an agricultural lessee in the land
of petitioner whose security of tenure must be After trial, the trial court decided in favor of
respected by the latter. petitioners by holding that private respondent is
not an agricultural lessee of the land now owned
The antecedent facts are as follows: by petitioners. The dispositive portion of the
RTC decision reads:
The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San
Diego owned a piece of agricultural land WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
consisting of 20,200 square meters situated at dismissing plaintiff's complaint to be declared a
San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas, devoted to tenant of the landholding consisting of 20,200
rice and corn. As far back as 1934, private square meters, located at San Pioquinto, Malvar,
respondent Fideli has been cultivating this land Batangas, and owned by the defendants;
as a tenant of the Spouses respondent Fideli has ordering Pedro Fideli to vacate the landholding
been cultivating this land as a tenant of the deliver possession thereof to the defendants;
Spouses San Diego under a fifty-fifty (50-50) and ordering the amount of P8,000.00
sharing agreement. This fact, petitioners do not deposited under Account No. 2940029826 Civil
dispute. Case No. T-430 to be withdrawn and delivered
to the defendants, No. pronouncement as to
On May 2, 1974, a lease contract was executed costs.
between the Spouses San Diego and one Regino
Cassanova for a period of four years from May On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
1974 up to May 1978. 3 The lease contract RTC decision and declared private respondent to
obliged Cassanova to pay P400.00 per be the agricultural lessee of the subject
hectare per annum and gave him the authority landholding. Hence, this petition wherein
to oversee the planting of crops on the private respondent's status as an agricultural
land. 4 Private respondent signed this lease lessee and his security of tenure as such are
contract as one of two witnesses. 5 being disputed by petitioners.

1
Petitioners impugn the Court of Appeals' subrogated to the rights and substituted to the
declaration that private respondent is an obligations of the agricultural lessor.
agricultural lessee of the subject landholding
contending that when the original landowners, Hence, transactions involving the agricultural
the Spouses San Diego, entered into a lease land over which an agricultural leasehold
contract with Regino Cassanova, the subsists resulting in change of ownership, e.g.,
agricultural leasehold relationship between the sale, or transfer of legal possession, such as
Spouses San Diego and private respondent, the lease, will not terminate the right of the
existence of which petitioners do not dispute, agricultural lessee who is given protection by
was thereby terminated. Petitioners argue that the law by making such rights enforceable
a landowner cannot have a civil law lease against the transferee or the landowner's
contract with one person and at the same time successor in interest. 14
have an agricultural leasehold agreement with
another over the same land. It is further argued Illustrative of the legal principles outlined above
that because private respondent consented to is Catorce v. Court of Appeals 15 where the
the lease contract between the Spouses San person holding a mortgage over the farm land
Diego and Cassanova, signing as he did the subject of an agricultural leasehold took
lease agreement and the renewal contract as possession thereof pursuant to the mortgage
witness thereof, private respondent has waived and ousted the agricultural lessee. Upon
his rights as an agricultural lessee. complaint for reinstatement filed by the
agricultural lessee, the then Court of Agrarian
These contentions are without merit. Relations ordered the mortgagee to deliver
possession over the land to the agricultural
R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended By R.A. No. lessee but his decision was reversed by the
6839 (1971), which is the relevant law Court of Appeals. In reversing the Court of
governing the events at hand, abolished share Appeals' judgment and reinstating the Agrarian
tenancy throughout the Philippines from 1971 Court's decision, the Court, through Justice
and established the agricultural leasehold Melencio-Herrera, noted, among other
system by operation of law. 11 Section 7 of the considerations, that "tenants are guaranteed
said law gave agricultural lessees security of security of tenure, meaning, the continued
tenure by providing the following: "The enjoyment and possession of their landholding
agricultural leasehold relation once established except when their dispossession had been
shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the authorized by virtue of a final and executory
right to continue working on the landholding judgment, which is not so in the case at
until such leasehold relation is extinguished. bar." 16 Implicit in the decision is the recognition
The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to that the transfer of possession to the mortgage
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot did not terminate the agricultural leasehold nor
be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the prejudice the security of tenure of the
Court for causes herein provided." 12 The fact agricultural lessee.
that the landowner entered into a civil lease
contract over the subject landholding and gave Closer, to although not identical with the factual
the lessee the authority to oversee the farming setting of the case at bar is Novesteras v. Court
of the land, as was done in this case, is not of Appeals. 17 Petitioner in said case was a share
among the causes provided by law for the tenant of the respondent over two parcels of
extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold land. Respondent entered into a contract of civil
relation. 13 On the contrary, Section 10 of the lease with Rosenda Porculas for a term of three
law provides: years. Porculas did not farm the land himself but
left it to petitioner to till the land. After the
Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not expiration of the lease between respondent and
Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. — The Porculas, petitioner entered into an agreement
agricultural leasehold relation under this code denominated as a contract of civil lease with
shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of respondent. On expiration of this lease contract,
the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by respondent denied petitioner possession over
the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal the land. Resolving the rights and obligations of
possession of the landholding. In case the the parties, the Court, through Justice Paras,
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers held that the petitioner therein became an
the legal possession of the landholding, the agricultural tenant of respondent by virtue of
purchaser or transferee thereof shall be R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended by R.A. No
6839 (1971). The lease contract between the
2
respondent and Porculas did not terminate the dismissal from their holdings. (Primero v. CAR,
agricultural leasehold relationship between 101 Phil. 675);
petitioner and respondent. If at all, the said
lease agreement, coupled by the fact that It is our considered judgment, since the return
Porculas allowed petitioner to continue by the lessee of the leased property to the lessor
cultivating in his capacity as tenant of the upon the expiration of the contract involves also
subject landholding, served to strengthen a transfer of legal possession, and taking into
petitioner's security of tenure as an agricultural account the manifest intent of the lawmaking
tenant of the farmland in question. Accordingly, body in amending the law, i.e., to provide the
the subsequent contract between petitioner and tenant with security of tenure in all cases of
respondent denominated as a contract of civil transfer of legal possession, that the instant
lease was held by the Court to be in fact an case falls within and is governed by the
agricultural leasehold agreement. provisions of Section 9 of Republic Act 1199, as
amended by Republic Act 2263. (Joya v. Pareja,
Again, in Coconut Cooperative Marketing 106 Phil, 645).
Association, Inc. (COCOMA) v. Court of
Appeals, 18 it was held that the agricultural . . . that the tenant may proceed against the
leasehold is preserved, notwithstanding the transferee of the land to enforce obligation
transfer of the legal possession of the subject incurred by the former landholder such
landholding, with the transferee, COCOMA in obligation . . . falls upon the assignee or
that case, being accountable to the agricultural transferee of the land pursuant to Sec. 9
lessees for their rights. The Court, through abovementioned. Since respondent are in turn
Justice Padilla, summarized the rule as follows: free to proceed against the former landholder
for reimbursement, it is not iniquitous to hold
There is also no question that, in this case, there them responsible to the tenant for said
was a transfer of the legal possession of the land obligations. Moreover, it is the purpose of
from one landholder to another (Fule to Republic Act 1199, particularly Sec. 9 thereof, to
petitioner COCOMA). In connection therewith, insure that the right of the tenant to receive his
Republic Act 3844, Sec. 10 states: lawful share of the produce to receive this lawful
share of the produce of the land is unhampered
Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not by the transfer of said land from one landholder
Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. — The to another. (Almarinez v. Potenciano, 120 Phil.
agricultural leasehold relation under this Code 1154.). 19
shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of
the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by In the instant case, private respondent has been
the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal cultivating the subject farm landholding with a
possession of the landholding. In case the fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing arrangement with the
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers Spouses San Diego, petitioners'
the legal possession of the landholding, predecessors-in-interest. The passage of R.A.
purchaser or transferee thereof shall be 6839 in 1971, amending R.A. 3844 (1963),
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the secured to private respondent all the rights
obligations of the agricultural lessor. pertaining to an agricultural lessee. The
execution of a lease agreement between the
Further, in several cases, this Court sustained Spouses San Diego and Regino Cassanova in
the preservation of the landholder-tenant 1974 did not terminate private respondent's
relationship, in cases of transfer of legal status as an agricultural lessee. The fact that
possession: private respondent knew of, and consented to,
the said lease contract by signing as witness to
. . . in case of transfer or in case of lease, as in the agreement may not be construed as a
the instant case, the tenancy relationship waiver of his rights as an agricultural lessee. On
between the landowner and his tenant should be the contrary, it was his right to know about the
preserved in order to insure the well-being of lease contract since, as a result of the
the tenant or protect him from being unjustly agreement, he had to deal with a new person
dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of instead of with the owners directly as he used to.
the land; in other words, the purpose of the law No provision may be found in the lease contract
in question is to maintain the tenants in the and the renewal contract even intimating that
peaceful possession and cultivation of the land private respondent has waived his rights as an
or afford them protection against unjustified agricultural lessee. Militating against
petitioners' theory that the agricultural
3
leasehold was terminated or waived upon the In fine, the Court, after a painstaking
execution of the lease agreement between the examination of the entire records of the case
San Diegos and Cassanova is the fact the latter and taking into account the applicable law, as
desisted from personally cultivating the land but well as the relevant jurisprudence, rules that
left it to private respondent to undertake the private respondent is the agricultural lessee
farming, the produce of the land being shared over the land owned by petitioners. As such,
between Cassanova and private respondent, private respondent's security of tenure must be
while the former paid P400.00 and later respected by petitioners.
P600.00 per hectare per annum to the San
Diegos, as agreed upon in the lease contract. The Court, however, notes from the records of
the case that private respondent has unilaterally
Petitioners, however, insist that private decided to pay only 25% of the net harvests to
respondent can no longer be considered the petitioners. 24 Since the agreement of private
agricultural lessee of their farm land because respondent with the Spouses San Diego, the
after they purchased the land from the Spouses original owners, was for a fifty-fifty (50-50)
San Diego in 1980, private respondent did not sharing of the net produce of the land, the same
secure their permission to cultivate the land as sharing agreement should be maintained
agricultural lessee. between petitioners and private respondents,
without prejudice to a renegotiation of the terms
It is true that the Court has ruled that of the leasehold agreement.
agricultural tenancy is not created where the
consent the true and lawful owners is WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition
absent. 20 But this doctrine contemplates a is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of
situation where an untenanted farm land is Appeals AFFIRMED. Private respondent is
cultivated without the landowner's knowledge hereby ordered to pay the back rentals from
or against her will or although permission to 1980 until 1992 plus interest at the legal rate.
work on the farm was given, there was no An accounting of the production of the subject
intention to constitute the worker as the landholding is to be made by private respondent
agricultural lessee of the farm land. 21 The rule to the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan,
finds no application in the case at bar where the Batangas which shall determine the amount due
petitioners are successors-in-interest to a to petitioners based on the rate ordered above.
tenanted land over which an agricultural
leasehold has long been established. The SO ORDERED.
consent given by the original owners to
constitute private respondent as the agricultural Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr. and Melo, JJ.,
lessee of the subject landholding binds private concur.
respondents whom as successors-in-interest of
the Spouses San Diego, step into the latter's
shows, acquiring not only their rights but also
their obligations. 22

Contradicting their position that no agricultural