ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 142954. June 14, 2000]
ROMEO SABERON, et al. vs. CA, et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 14 2000.
G.R. No. 142954 (Romeo Saberon and Charito Saberon vs. Court of Appeals, Yutivo Investment Corporation, Aurelia Tanalega and heirs of the late Luis Tanalega.)
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court consequently declaring that petitioners do not have the right of first refusal over the sale of the subject land because they are not legitimate tenants or residents who have occupied the land by contract as required by Section 6 of Presidential Decree 1517, otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Law.
The subject of the present controversy is a 60 sq. m. residential lot located on Pasig Line corner Ligaya St., Sta. Ana, manila which used to be owned by private respondent Yutivo Investment Corporation (Yutivo).
Adjacent to the subject lot is a lot occupied by a certain Esperanza Sumulong who built her garage on a portion of the subject property. Sometime in 1973, Sumulong allowed petitioners Spouses Saberon to occupy the garage, charging a monthly rental of P30.00. However, when petitioners learned that the subject property was owned by Yutivo and not by Sumulong, they stopped paying rental to Sumulong. Over the years, petitioners were able to build on the subject property a residential house "made of hollow blocks, steel bars, galvanized iron and wood and could easily be distinguished from the other house in the area which are just shanties or barong-barong."
Yutivo had no knowledge of petitioners' occupancy of the subject property, but upon learning of the occupancy, it asked petitioners if they were interested in buying the property. Yutivo had other pieces of property in the area which it was selling, giving preference to actual occupants who could meet its terms. In a letter dated August 15, 1986, petitioners offered to purchase the subject lot for P21,000.00 payable in installments. However, Yutivo preferred payment in cash and thus rejected petitioners' offer.
On September 1, 1987, Yutivo sold the subject lot to the other private respondents, the spouses Luis Tanalega, Sr. and Aurelia Tanalega for P15,000.00 cash. Thereafter, Yutivo's title was cancelled and TCT No. 178723 was issued in the name of the spouse Tanalega.
In November 1987, the Tanalegas took steps to take actual possession of the subject property from petitioners through the intercession of barangay authorities. Petitioners resisted. Thus, an ejectment case was filed against them.
On the other hand, petitioners filed a complaint to annul the deed of sale between Yutivo and the Tanalegas and to cancel TCT No. 178723 in the names of the latter. Petitioners alleged that the subject property was covered by the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program (SIRP) of the government and they, being legitimate occupants for more than ten years, have a prior right to purchase or a right of first refusal.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the applicable law is Presidential Decree No. 1517, otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Law.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Thus, the instant petition which is bereft of merit.
As correctly ruled, the applicable law is Presidential Decree No. 1517, Section 6 of which provides:
Sec. 6. Land Tenancy in Urban Land Reform Areas. Within the Urban Zones legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homes on the land and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years shall not be dispossessed of the land shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase the same within a reasonable time and at reasonable prices, under terms and conditions to be determined by the Urban Zone Expropriation and Land Management Committee created by Section 8 of this Decree. (Underlining ours)
The law clearly prescribes, that only legitimate tenants and those whose occupancy is by virtue of a contract, may claim the benefits envisaged therein. Under the same decree, the term "legitimate tenants" refers to the "rightful occupant of land and its structure, but does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation."
In the case at bar, petitioners themselves admit that they entered the land in question without the knowledge of Yutivo. Neither was there any understanding nor agreement with Yutivo regarding the occupancy of the lot. Thus, petitioners' occupancy of the land was, at best, merely tolerated by Yutivo. Hence, as occupants of the subject land by mere tolerance and without the benefit of contract, petitioners may not claim the benefits granted under the Urban Land Reform Law.
Petitioners insist that even if they are not qualified under Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517, they are nevertheless covered by Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 2016 which prohibits the eviction of occupant families from lands identified and proclaimed as Areas for Priority Development and Urban land Reform Zone. They submit that Presidential Decree No. 2016 amended, modified, and expanded Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517.
The Court had an occasion to rule that Presidential Decree No. 2016 merely seeks to implement the Urban Land Law (P.D. 1517) and does not enlarge the scope of the coverage. Nowhere in said decree can there be found additional qualified beneficiaries nor a redefinition of whose are to be considered tenants; that the "slum" or depressed community" referred to in Presidential Decree No. 2016 cannot be considered additional beneficiaries of the Urban Land Reform Law (P.D. 1517) but merely additional places or properties covered under the said law. Beneficiaries of the Urban Land Reform law (P.D. 1517) should refer to the tenants or families and not the property covered by it (Vergara vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 185 SCRA 29 [1990]).
Moreover, the Court is inclined to adhere to the Court if Appeals' finding that petitioners cannot properly invoke Presidential Decree No. 2016 as they failed to present any evidence that the subject lot is covered by the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program (SIRP). They failed to show that: (1) the City of Manila had expropriated the subject lot as part of the SIRP (Letter of Instruction No. 655, Section 2); (2) the NHA had approved the inclusion; (3) the City of Manila has acquired the property through expropriation and had declared the same free and alienable for the purpose of the SIRP. The fact that the property remained in the name of Yutivo and a new title was issued to the spouses Tanalega when they brought said property proves that the subject property had not been acquired by the government and hence could not have been covered by the SIRP.
WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
