VALENCIA vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. G.R. No. 122363, 401 SCRA 666 April 29, 2003 2003 BELLOSILLO, J BELLOSILLO, J .: .: Facts:
The property in dispute involves two (2) parcels of land situated in Canlaon City in Negro Ne gross Orien Oriental tal.. On 7 May May 1957 1957 Valen Valencia cia acquir acquired ed the first first parc parcel el from from Bonif Bonifaci acio o Supn Supnet, et, on 22 Octo October ber 1962 1962 Valen Valencia cia enter entered ed into into a ten ten (10)-y (10)-year ear civil civil law leas leasee agreement over his two (2) parcels of land with Henson. Before the ten (10)-year lease expired, without objection from Henson, Valencia leased the property for five (5) years to Fr. Flores under a civil law lease concept beginning 21 August 1970 or until 30 June 1975 after which the lease was cancelled .The lease agreement between Valencia and Fr. Flores was subject to a prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencia's Valencia's written consent. consent. During the period of lease, Henson instituted Cresenciano and Marciano Frias to work on the property, also during the lease of Fr. Flores he designated 13 persons as overseer and when the lease agreement between the Petitioner and Fr. Flores expired, Petitioner demand demanded ed to vacat vacatee the prop propert erty y and and inste instead ad the the priva private te resp respond onden ents ts cont continu inued ed cultivat cultivating ing the premises premises and refused refused to comply. comply. On March March 20, 1976, Valencia Valencia filed a letter to protest to DAR Regional Office in Cebu City, while the private respondents without the knowledge knowledge of the Petitioner, Petitioner, applied for the Certificates Certificates of Land Transfer Transfer (CLTs (CLTs)) under under the the Oper Operati ation on Land Land Trans Transfer fer (OLT (OLT)) Progr Program am purs pursuan uantt to PD No. No. 27 claiming they were bona fide tenants of the property. Upon issuance of the Certificate of Land Land Transfe Transferr to the private private respond respondents ents,, the Petitioner Petitioner institut instituted ed the filing of the second letter contending the cancellation of CLTs. Issue:
Whether or not a contract contract of civil law lease prohibits a civil law lessee from employing a tenan tenantt on the the land land subje subject ct matte matterr of the lease lease agreem agreemen ent? t? Othe Otherw rwise ise state stated, d, can petitioner's civil law lessee, Fr. Flores, install tenants on the subject premises without express authority to do so under Art. 1649 of the Civil Code, more so when the lessee is expressly prohibited from doing so, as in the instant case? Held:
Contrary to the impression of private respondents, Sec. 6 of R. A. No. 3844, as amended, does does not not autom automati atica cally lly autho authoriz rizee a civil civil law lessee lessee to em emplo ploy y a tenan tenantt witho without ut the the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized. For the right to hire a tenant is basically a perso a personal nal right of a landowner landowner, except as may be provided by
law. But law. But certainly certainly nowhe nowhere re in Sec. Sec. 6 does it say that a civil civil law lessee of a landholdi landholding ng is automatically authorized to install a tenant thereon. thereon. A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd situation where a person who wants to be a tenant, and taking advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third person to become a civil law lessee of the landowner. Incredibly, this tenant would technically have a better right right over over the the prop propert erty y than than the the lando landown wner er hims himself elf.. This This tenant tenant woul would d then then gain gain security of tenure, and eventually become owner of the land by operation of law. This is 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. 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. Plainly stated therefore, 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. An extensive and corr correc ectt discu discuss ssion ion of the statuto statutory ry inter interpr preta etatio tion n of Sec. Sec. 6 of R. A. No. No. 3844, 3844, as amended, amended, is provided by the minority view in Bern in Bernas as v. Court Court of Appeals. Appeals. When Sec. 6 provides that the agricultural agricultural leasehold relations relations shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person who personally cultivates the same, it assumes that there is already an existing agricultural leasehold relation, i.e., a tenant or agricultural lessee already works the land . The epigraph of Sec. 6 merely states who are " Parties Parties to Agricultur Agricultural al Leasehold Leasehold Relations Relations," ," which which assu assume mess that that ther theree is alread already y a lease leaseho hold ld tenant on the land; not until then. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. GRANTED. The assailed Decision Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 32669 dated 27 July 1995 and its Resolution dated 22 September 1995 denying the Motion for Reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
