Case Digest: DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES v. MARIANO DAVID et al.

DON PEPE HENSON ENTERPRISES v. MARIANO DAVID et al.

436 SCRA 605 (2004)

Any agricultural lessee whose landholding is not yet covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer and who shall continue not to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner/agricultural lessor shall, upon proper hearing and judgment, lose his right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholding.

Petitioner Don Pepe Henson Enterprises (DPHE) impugns the coverage of its land under P.D. No. 27, otherwise know as the Tenant Emancipation Decree, and the issuance of the Emancipation Patents in favor of respondents Mariano David, et al.

The Provincial Adjudicator decided in favor of DPHE and on appeal to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the decision was reversed and the complaint was dismissed.

The Court of Appeals sustained the finding that the disputed land was indeed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27. It however annulled the Certificate of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents and TCT‘s issued in favor of David without prejudice to another application.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the disputed land is covered by the P.D. No. 27

HELD:

With regard to the first ground to which the present petition is anchored, the Court holds that while it is undisputed that the bulk of the 19-hectare land of DPHE is devoted to sugarcane production, the 5.5 hectare portion thereof – the farmholding of David et al.– is devoted to palay, hence, such farmholding is covered by P.D. No. 27.

If the 5.5-hectare farmholding is deducted from the 19-hectare property of DPHE, it still has 13.5 hectares of farmland. The 5.5 hectare farmholding of the land was thus legally disposed to David et al. under the Operation Land Transfer Program.

DPHE‘s position that the 19-hectare land is not owned by the partnership but by at least twenty-three (23) partners in common each of these partners is entitled to the 7-hectare retention limit, it‘s conclusion that the aggregate area of 19 hectares is exempted likewise fails. A partnership has a juridical personality separate from the individual partners. The CA has found as a fact that DPHE is the registered owner of the land. . . . The land being then owned by a single entity, a partnership, it is among those covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program pursuant to LOI 474.

The Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents and TCTs being void then as they are unchallenged by both parties, it would be incongruous to apply Section 2 of P.D. No. 816. What should apply instead is Section 3 of the same law which provides that any agricultural lessee whose landholding is not yet covered by a Certificate of Land Transfer and who shall continue not to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner/agricultural lessor shall, upon proper hearing and judgment, lose his right to be issued a Certificate of Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and his farmholding;‖

Therefore, in so far as that the CA allowed David, et al. to apply for new patents and certificates, its decision is not in accordance with Section 3 of P.D. No. 816 which operates to deprive David et al. of their ―right to be issued Certificates of Land Transfer under P.D. No. 27 and their farmholding.‖ On this score, David‘s ejectment is proper.