

|
|
|
|
G. R. Nos. L-47757-61
January 28, 1980
-versus-
AQUINO, J.:
The legal issue
in this case is whether Presidential
Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting and similar acts, applies to
agricultural lands. The Decree [which took effect on August 20, 1975]
provides:
The record shows that on October 25, 1977 Fiscal Abundio R. Ello filed with the lower court separate Informations against sixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized by Presidential Decree No. 772. The Information against Mario Aparici which is similar to the other fifteen Informations, reads:
Five of the Informations, wherein Ano Dacullo, Geronimo Oroyan, Mario Aparici, Ruperto Cajes and Modesto Suello were the accused, were raffled to Judge Vicente B. Echaves, Jr. of Branch II [Criminal Cases Nos. 1824, 1828, 1832, 1833 and 1839, respectively]. Before the accused could be arraigned, Judge Echaves, motu proprio issued an omnibus order dated December 9, 1977 dismissing the five Informations on the grounds [1] that it was alleged that the accused entered the land through "stealth and strategy", whereas under the Decree, the entry should be effected "with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner", and [2] that under the rule of ejusdem generis the Decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing land. Because of that order, the fiscal amended the informations by using in lieu of "stealth and strategy" the expression "with threat, and taking advantage of the absence of the ranchowner and/or tolerance of the said ranchowner". The fiscal asked that the dismissal order be reconsidered and that the amended informations be admitted. The lower court denied the motion. It insisted that the phrase "and for other purposes" in the Decree does not include agricultural purposes because its preamble does not mention the Secretary of Agriculture and makes reference to the affluent class. From the order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this Court under Republic Act No. 5440. The appeal is devoid of merit. We hold that the lower court correctly ruled that the Decree does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to illegal constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. The squatting complained of involves pasture lands in rural areas. The preamble of the decree is quoted below:
It should be stressed that Letter of Instructions No. 19 refers to illegal constructions on public and private property. It is complemented by Letter of Instructions No. 19-A which provides for the relocation of squatters in the interest of public health, safety and peace and order. On the other hand, it should be noted that squatting on public agricultural lands, like the grazing lands involved in this case, is punished by Republic Act No. 947 which makes it unlawful for any person, corporation or association to forcibly enter or occupy public agricultural lands. That law provides:
Violations of the law are punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. [See People vs. Lapasaran 100 Phil. 40]. The rule of ejusdem generis [of the same kind or species] invoked by the trial court does not apply to this case. Here, the intent of the Decree is unmistakable. It is intended to apply only to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions. The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory construction which is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain. [Genato Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S. 1049-50]. WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed. No costs. SO ORDERED. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|