Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FIRST DIVISION
MARCIANA ALARCON, ERENCIO
AUSTRIA,
JUAN
BONIFACIO,
PETRONILA DELA CRUZ, RUFINA
DELA
CRUZ,
CELESTINO
LEGASPI, JOSE MAYONDAG and
DAVID SANTOS,
Petitioners,
-versus-
HONORABLE
APPEALS and
SANTOS, INC.,
COURT
PASCUAL
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set aside
the decision dated September 28, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 63680,[1] which reversed the decision dated January 10,
2001 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB).
chanroblespublishingcompany
On the other hand, the Regional Adjudicator held that the DAR had
no jurisdiction over the complaint against Mayor Pablo Olivares, and
dismissed the same. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1. Directing the Respondent Pascual and Santos Inc., to pay
to each complainant as and by way of disturbance
compensation 1,500 cavans of salt or their money
equivalent at the prevailing market value;
chanroblespublishingcompany
II
THAT METRO MANILA ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 81-01,
SERIES OF 1981, DID NOT EXTINGUISH THE TENURIAL
RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT AND
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND DOES NOT ENTITLE
THE TENANTS TO DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION FOR
PARTIES CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR TENURIAL
RELATIONS EVEN AFTER RECLASSIFICATION.[8]
chanroblespublishingcompany
Coming now to the main issue, petitioners argue that they are entitled
to disturbance compensation for being dispossessed of their tenancy.
Respondent counters that under Sections 30[10] and 31(1)[11] of RA
3844, a landowner of agricultural land is liable to pay disturbance
compensation only when he petitioned the court to eject or dispossess
the tenant on the ground that the land has already been reclassified
from agricultural to non-agricultural. Without such a petition, he has
no obligation to pay disturbance compensation because the mere
reclassification of the land does not ipso facto extinguish the tenancy
relationship between tenant and landowner. Hence, when the subject
landholding was reclassified in 1981 by the enactment of Metro
Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, petitioners and private
respondent continued with their tenancy relationship. It was only in
1994 that their relationship was disturbed due to the dumping of
garbage by the city government, which polluted the source of
saltwater.
chanroblespublishingcompany
The argument is not well-taken. The RARAD decision is not yet final
and executory. It was made the subject of a petition for review with
the Court of Appeals and is pending with this Court.
chanroblespublishingcompany
Finally, the case of Bunye vs. Aquino,[12] does not apply in the instant
case. We allowed the payment of disturbance compensation in the
said case because there was an order of conversion issued by the
Department of Agrarian Reform of the landholding from agricultural
to residential. The decree was never questioned and thus became
final. Consequently, the tenants were ejected from the land and were
thus awarded disturbance compensation.
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[13] Section 2(k) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01-99, Revised Rules and
Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural
Uses.
[14] Section 2(R), DAR Administrative Order No. 01-99, Revised Rules and
Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural
Uses.
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany