CASTRO v. MENDOZA

CASTRO v. MENDOZA Sr.

GR No. 212778

April 26, 2017

FACTS:

The property is part of a parcel of land with a total area of 14,827 square meters, originally covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20427 registered in the name of Simeon Santos, married to Laura Cruz (original Santos property). Upon the death of Simeon, his compulsory heirs, surviving spouse, Laura, and his children, Rosalina, Natividad, Melencio, Valentin, Jesus, Tirso, and Luis, all surnamed Santos, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition with waiver of rights and sale on May 16, 1977.

Petitioners, on the other hand, are agricultural tenants of the original Santos property. From July 1981 when Teddy substituted his mother Rosalina Castro in the tenancy of the original Santos property, he has been in its actual possession, occupation, and cultivation, personally performing all aspects of production with the aid of labor from the other petitioner Sebastian and paying the agreed lease rentals.

The controversy started when Jesus (owner-heir) sold his share in the original Santos property to respondent Municipality on October 27, 1992. Jesus sold his undivided interest therein of 2,132.42 square meters for the amount of P1.2 Million which the respondent Municipality acquired for the expansion and construction of the Bustos public market. Hereafter, we shall refer to the 2,132.42 square meter property sold by Jesus as the property. As of 1989, the lots surrounding the first public market in respondent Municipality, including the original Santos property and the portion sold by Jesus, have been classified as a commercial area.

On August 22, 1994, after the inauguration of the public market, petitioners filed their complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with prayer for Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction; Pre-emption and Redemption; and Damages before the PARAD against respondent Municipality. In their complaint, petitioners "categorically manifested their serious intent to exercise their rights of pre-emption and redemption provided for under Sections 11 and 12, Republic Act No. 3884, as amended.” On August 26, 1994, petitioners deposited the amount of P2,300.00 as redemption price for the property.

PARAD, judgment rendered in favor of petitioners and against defendants Santos and the Municipality of Bustos. Likewise, petitioners are entitled to exercise the right of redemption of the property in question.

DARAB modified the decision of the PARAD, directing instead respondent Municipality to pay disturbance compensation to petitioners.

The CA affirmed the uniform rulings of the PARAD and the DARAB that petitioners are tenants of the property who did not receive notice of its sale by Jesus. The CA reinstated the PARAD's original ruling.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioners may recover possession, and obtain ownership, of the property.

RULING:

Under Section 12 of the RA 3844, the right of redemption is validly exercised upon compliance with the following requirements: (a) the redemptioner must be an agricultural lessee or share tenant; (b) the land must have been sold by the owner to a third party without prior written notice of the sale given to the lessee or lessees and the DAR; (c) only the area cultivated by the agricultural lessee may be redeemed; and (d) the right of redemption must be exercised within 180 days from written notice of the sale by the vendee.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners are bona fide tenants of the original Santos property. A portion of that land was sold by an owner-heir, Jesus, to a third party, respondent Municipality, without any written notice of the sale to petitioners and the DAR. Albeit petitioners' right of redemption had long been sustained and upheld, it fell upon them to comply with the requirements for a valid and effective exercise of such right. Otherwise stated, the filing of the complaint should have been coupled with the consignation of the redemption price to show their willingness and ability to pay within the prescribed period.

In this regard, we agree with the CA's ruling that petitioners belatedly tendered payment and effected consignation of the redemption price of P1.2 million. Notably, petitioners filed on August 26, 1994 a Motion for Consignation of Reasonable Redemption Amount of only P2,300.00 for the 2,132.42 square meters landholding sold by Jesus to respondent Municipality. The discrepancy between the amounts of P2,300.00 and P1.2 Million clearly calls to question petitioners' willingness and ability to pay.

By contrast, petitioners are not registered owners, but possessors who ought to be in continuous cultivation and possession of the property. Their belated and ineffective redemption of the property, coupled with their collection of rentals from private respondents, speaks volumes of their acquiescence to the classification and public use of the property. In fact, petitioners awaited inauguration of the public market before they filed suit against respondent Municipality to recover possession of the property. During construction of the public market for more than a year, petitioners did not appear to question their dispossession from the property.

WHEREFORE, The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 749-Bulacan is directed to compute the amount of disturbance compensation to be paid petitioners Teddy Castro and Lauro Sebastian by public respondent Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. No costs.