Valencia Vs CA

Valencia v.
CA
GR No. 122363
29 April 2003
FACTS:
When Victor Valencia acquired two parcels of land, he entered into civil law leases
with Glicerio Henson and Fr. Andres Flores. Henson instituted Crescenciano and
Marciano Frias to work on the property; while Fr. Flores appointed the Friases, plus
some others, as farmhands. However, in Fr. Flores lease contract, there was a
stipulation that he was prohibited from installing a leasehold tenant thereon. No such
prohibition existed in Hensons contract.
When Fr. Flores lease period expired, Valencia ordered his farmhands to vacate the
lot. The farmhands refused to do so, and actually even secured CLTs over the land in
their names. Catalino Mantac, one of the farmhands, subsequently entered into a
leasehold contract undertaking to have a profit-sharing agreement with Valencia.
After 12 years, DAR investigated the matter and found that the right of the
farmhands to the land ceased upon the termination of the lease contracts, except as
regards to Mantac, with whom Valencia entered into a tenancy agreement. As such, it
was recommended that the CLTs given to the other farmhands be cancelled.
However, the Regional Office disregarded the investigation report and ruled that the
farmhands had a right to continue on the land until otherwise ordered by the court.
On appeal to the Office of the President, then Exec. Sec. Teofisto Guingona upheld the
ruling of the DAR, with the modification that the area acquired by Valencia as
homestead be excluded from the coverage of PD 27.
Valencia then appealed to the CA contending that the Exec. Sec. erred in recognizing
the farmlands as tenants, and disallowing him and his 7 compulsory heirs from
exercising their right of retention un de r RA 6 65 7. Howe ve r, the CA dismissed
the case.
ISSUE: WON a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a
tenant on the land subject matter of the lease agreement.
HELD: YES. Sec. 6 of RA 3844 does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to
employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so
specifically authorized. A different interpretation would be most unfair to the hapless
and unsuspecting landowner who entered into a civil law lease agreement in good
faith only to realize later on that he can no longer regain possession of his property
due to the installation of a tenant by the civil law lessee. On the other hand, under
the express provision of Art. 1649 of the Civil Code, the lessee cannot assign the
lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. In
the case before us, not only is there no stipulation to the contrary; the lessee is
expressly prohibited from subleasing or encumbering the land, which includes
installing a leasehold tenant thereon since the right to do so is an attribute of
ownership.
The right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of a landowner, except as may
be provided by law. Inherent in the right of landholders to install a tenant is their
authority to do so; otherwise, without such authority, civil law lessees as landholders
cannot install a tenant on the landholding.
Tenancy relationship has been held to be of a personal character.
Deforciants cannot install lawful tenants who are entitled to security of tenure.
A contract of civil law lease can prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on
the land subject matter of the lease agreement.

Essential requisites of a tenancy relationship:
.
(1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
(2) The subject is agricultural land;
(3) There is consent;
(4) The purpose is agricultural production;
(5) There is personal cultivation; and
(6) There is sharing of harvests between the parties.

An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the
case an agrarian dispute. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to
security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle
the claimant to security of tenure.
The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant
does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.
The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by
tenants de jure, not by those who are not true and lawful tenants.
The act of subletting to third persons extinguishes the agricultural leasehold
relations, as this constitutes an abandonment of the landholding due to absence of
personal cultivation.
Obiter:Social justice is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in his mansion
or a pauper in his hovel. It is never justified to give preference to the poor simply
because they are poor, or reject the rich simply because they are rich, for justice
must always be served for the poor and the rich alike according to the mandate of
law.
Interpretare et concordare leges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus.
Interpreting and harmonizing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation.

Valencia Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valencia Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valencia Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valencia v.

the land subject matter of the lease agreement.

(1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant;

(2) The subject is agricultural land;

(3) There is consent;

(4) The purpose is agricultural production;

(5) There is personal cultivation; and

(6) There is sharing of harvests between the parties.

You might also like