HIDALGO V HIDALGO GR L-25326

HIDALGO V HIDALGO 

FACTS:

1.     Respondent-vendor Policarpio Hidalgo was the owner of the subject parcels of land located in Batangas. (22,876-square meter and 7,638-square meter)

2.     R sold the subject parcel of land, together with two other parcels of land for P4,000.00.

3.     petitioners-tenants have for several years been working on the lands as share tenants thereof seek by way of redemption the execution of a deed of sale for the same amount of P1,500.00

4.     R did not give 90-day notice of intention to sell the lands for the exercise of the right of pre-emption prescribed by section 11 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code

5.     The deeds of sale were registered by RD and provincial assessor of Batangas in the records of their respective offices notwithstanding the non-execution by respondent-vendor of the affidavit required by section 13 of the Land Reform Code. ² 

6.     The actions for redemption were timely filled on March 26, 1965 by petitioners-tenants within the two-year prescriptive period from registration of the sale, prescribed by section 12 of the said Code.

ISSUE: W/N P, as share tenants, are entitled to redeem the parcel of land where no notice intention to sell the property was previously given to them by the vendor, and where the vendor did not execute the required affidavit before the registration of the deed of sale.

W/N right of redemption granted by Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 applicable to share tenants

HELD: YES

'SEC. 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. — In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided: further, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.'

The right of redemption granted by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 is applicable to leasehold tenants only, but not to share tenants, because said provision of law clearly, definitely, and unequivocally grants said right to the 'agricultural lessee,' and to nobody else.

1.     The very essence of the Agricultural Land Reform Code is the abolition of agricultural share tenancy

a.     Section 4 of the Code expressly outlaws agricultural share tenancy as "contrary to public policy" and decrees its abolition.

b.     It was error for the agrarian court to state that "the systems of agricultural tenancy recognized in this jurisdiction are share tenancy and leasehold tenancy."

c.     share tenancy contracts are allowed to continue temporarily in force and effect, notwithstanding their express abolition, until whichever of the following events occurs earlier:

(a)   the end of the agricultural year when the National Land Reform Council makes the proclamation declaring the region or locality a land reform area; or

(b) the shorter period provided in the share tenancy contracts expires; or

(c) the share tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold system.

In anticipation of the expiration of share tenancy contracts — which is going to be the transition to leasehold system —the same section 4 declared---- the tenant shall continue in possession of the land for cultivation and "there shall be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of this Code."

2.     The agrarian court was mistaken to assume that right of redemption/pre-emption is available to leasehold tenants only and excludes share tenants because the Code grants said rights only to the "agricultural lessee and to nobody else." It did not use the word tenant but “lessee” But they were once considered all share tenants.

3.     But in sec 11, agricultural lessor is used interchangeably with landowner.

4.     Application of the cardinal rule of statutory construction that such intent or spirit must prevail over the letter thereof, for whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute is in order since adherence to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice and contradictions and would defeat the plain and vital purpose of the statute.

Section 11 provides expressly that "the entire landholding offered for sale must be pre-empted by the Land Authority if the landowner so desires, unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition," presumably for being beyond their capabilities.

7.     Clearly then, the Code intended to afford the farmers' who transitionally will change from share to leasehold, the same priority and preferential right as those other share tenants,

In the case, however, the deed of sale executed by R in favor of respondents-vendees for the price of P4,000.00 covers three parcels of land, while what is sought to be redeemed is only 22,876 square meters,

Code precisely provides that the farmer shall have "the preferential right to buy the (landholding) under reasonable terms and conditions" or "redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration" ²¹ 

Under these circumstances, since the agrarian court did not rule upon conflicting claims of the parties as to what was the proportionate worth of the parcel of land in the stated price of P4,000.00 — whether P1,500.00 as claimed by petitioners or a little bit more, considering the proportionate values of the two other parcels, but the whole total is not to exceed the stated price of P4,000.00, since the vendor is bound thereby — and likewise, what was the additional proportionate worth of the expenses assumed by the vendees, assuming that petitioners are not willing to assume the same obligation, the case should be remanded to the agrarian court solely for the purpose of determining the reasonable price and consideration to be paid by petitioners for redeeming the landholding, in accordance with these observations.

In Case L-25327, there is no question as to the price of P750.00 paid by the vendees and no additional consideration or expenses, unlike in Case L-25326, supra, assumed by the vendees. Hence, petitioners therein are entitled to redeem the landholding for the same stated price.

ACCORDINGLY, the decisions appealed from are hereby reversed, and the petitions to redeem the subject landholdings are granted.

In Case L-25326, however, the case is remanded to the agrarian court solely for determining the reasonable price to be paid by petitioners therein to respondents-vendees for redemption of the landholding in accordance with the observations hereinabove made.