1

FULL TEXT:

G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989

Petitioners: GABINO ALITA

JESUS JULIAN, JR.
JESUS JULIAN, SR
PEDRO RICALDE
VICENTE RICALDE
ROLANDO SALAMAR

Respondents: THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS
ENRIQUE M. REYES
PAZM. REYES
FE M. REYES

THE CASE SEEK TO REVERSE CA DECISION SAYING YES TO RTC DECISION

Before us is a petition seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by the respondent Court of
Appeals**on March 3, 1987 affirming the judgment of the court a quo dated April 29, 1986, the
dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reading as follows;

TRIAL COURT DECISION:

 WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by this Court on November 5, 1982 is hereby

reconsidered and a new judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring that Presidential Decree No. 27 is inapplicable to lands obtained thru the
homestead law,
2. Declaring that the four registered co-owners will cultivate and operate the
farmholding themselves as owners thereof; and
3. Ejecting from the land the so-called tenants, namely; Gabino Alita, Jesus Julian, Sr.,
Jesus Julian, Jr., Pedro Ricalde, Vicente Ricalde and Rolando Salamar, as the
owners would want to cultivate the farmholding themselves.

 No pronouncement as to costs.
 SO ORDERED. (p. 31, Rollo)

FACTS:

 The facts are undisputed. The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of
land, acquired by private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through homestead
patent under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said lands are situated at
Guilinan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur.
 Private respondents herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but
petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and
appurtenant regulations issued by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (DAR for short),
now Department of Agrarian Reform (MAR for short).
 2

 On June 18, 1981, private respondents (then plaintiffs), instituted a complaint against
Hon. Conrado Estrella as then Minister of Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as
Regional Director of MAR Region IX, and herein petitioners (then defendants) for the
declaration of P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General
Orders issued in connection therewith as inapplicable to homestead lands.
 Defendants filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses of July 8, 1981.
 Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to enjoin the defendants
from declaring the lands in litigation under Operation Land Transfer and from being issued
land transfer certificates to which the defendants filed their opposition dated August 4,
1982.
 On November 5, 1982, the then Court of Agrarian Relations 16th Regional District,
Branch IV, Pagadian City (now Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII)
rendered its decision dismissing the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the
defendants was denied.
 On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the Order of dismissal, to which
defendants filed their opposition on January 10, 1983.
 Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial Court issued the aforequoted decision
prompting defendants to move for a reconsideration but the same was denied in its
Order dated June 6, 1986.
 On appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals , the same was sustained in its judgment
rendered on March 3, 1987, thus:
 WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error thereof, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED.

 SO ORDERED. (p. 34, Rollo)

 Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

 The pivotal issue is whether or not lands obtained through homestead patent are covered
by the Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27.

SUPREME COURT RULING

 The question certainly calls for a negative answer.

 The Court agree with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation
of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the
land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant
to the social justice precepts of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be
invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,
 The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The
law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself
and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life’s other
needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their
subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain
degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of
the people’s happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.
(Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45)
 3

 In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the
homesteaders’ rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian
Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which
provides:

Section 6.

 The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable
in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including
lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior
rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.
 Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting
the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the
property in question, reading,

Section 6. Retention Limits. …

 Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still
own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.’
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
 SO ORDERED.

CASE DIGEST:

G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989

Petitioners: GABINO ALITA

JESUS JULIAN, JR.

JESUS JULIAN, SR
PEDRO RICALDE
VICENTE RICALDE
ROLANDO SALAMAR

Respondents: THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS
ENRIQUE M. REYES
PAZM. REYES
 4

FE M. REYES

NATURE:

 A petition seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by the respondent Court of
Appeals on March 3, 1987 affirming the judgment of the court a quo dated April 29, 1986

The dispositive portion of the trial court’s decision reading as follows;

1. Declaring that Presidential Decree No. 27 is inapplicable to lands obtained thru the
homestead law,

2. Declaring that the four registered co-owners will cultivate and operate the farmholding
themselves as owners thereof; and

3. Ejecting from the land the so-called tenants , namely; Gabino Alita, Jesus Julian, Sr., Jesus
Julian, Jr., Pedro Ricalde, Vicente Ricalde and Rolando Salamar, as the owners would want to
cultivate the farmholding themselves.

FACTS:

1. The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land, acquired by private
respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said lands are situated at Guilinan, Tungawan, Zamboanga
del Sur.

2. Private respondents herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but
petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and
appurtenant regulations of DAR.

3. Petitioners (herein) filed a suit against the minister of agrarian reform and defendants for
the declaration of P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders
issued in connection therewith as inapplicable to homestead lands.

4. Subsequently, on July 19, 1982 after the defendants filed their reply, plaintiffs filed an urgent
motion to enjoin the defendants from declaring the lands in litigation under Operation Land
Transfer and from being issued land transfer certificates to which the defendants filed their
opposition dated August 4, 1982.

5. Court of Agrarian Reform decided rendered decision in favor of the respondents dismissing
the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the defendants was denied.

6. Filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by RTC.

7. Court of Appeals, the same was sustained in its judgment .

8. Hence, the plaintiff petitioned before SC for certitiorari.

Discussion:

 SC agree with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from
the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping
 5

social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts
of the Constitution.

 However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of
the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141.

 Thus SC notes that newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or
Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to
lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question, reading.

 Section 6. Retention Limits: Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their
direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this
Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. The
decision of the respondent Court of Appeals sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court
is hereby AFFIRMED.