ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 144652. June 19, 2006]

ARCADIO DANDOY, et al. v. ZACARIAS TONGSON [DECEASED], REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated June 19, 2006

G.R. No. 144652 (Arcadio Dandoy, et al. v. Zacarias Tongson [deceased], represented by his heirs, et al.)

This refers to the motion for reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated December 16, 2005, setting aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 31, 2000 and Resolution dated July 12, 2000, and reinstating the Regional Trial Court's Decision dated June 19, 1996, declaring null and void the Agricultural Leasehold Contracts between petitioners and respondents.

The CA Decision dismissed Civil Case No. 22380-93 for Declaration of Agricultural Leasehold Contract Void and Inexistent, Damages, Attorney's Fees and Preliminary Injunction with Temporary Restraining Order, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, as the CA held that it is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that has jurisdiction over the case. The Court set aside the foregoing Decision, ruling that there is no tenancy relationship between the parties such that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the case. The Court upheld the finding of the RTC that the leasehold contracts are null and void, and further ruled that the "Transfer of Sales Rights" dated June 9, 1952 between Magdalena Apa and the spouses Tongson, from which the Tongsons based their "right" to enter into the contracts with petitioners, merely conveyed to the Tongsons Apa's rights over her agricultural sales application for the property involved. The Court also noted that there is an appealed case still pending before the Office of the President.

In their motion for reconsideration, respondents contend that they had already become the owners of the property by operation of law, as they have been in possession in the concept of an owner as early as 1952. Respondents also take exception to the Court's application of Section 29 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act), arguing that the sale in this case involves Apa's right of possession of the property. Finally, respondents argue that the case should have been dismissed due to the pendency of the appeal before the Office of the President.

The motion for reconsideration has no merit.

The case before the RTC is merely one for the declaration of nullity of the Agricultural Leasehold Contracts. The Court cannot rule on the ownership of the property involved, which should be resolved in a separate case brought to court entirely for that purpose. In fact, neither did the RTC nor the CA rule on this aspect.

Commonwealth Act No. 141 is the applicable law. Despite respondents' protestations, the "Transfer of Sales Rights" merely transferred to the spouses Tongson Apa's right over the sales application for the property, and did not transfer any title or ownership over the same.

The pending appeal before the Office of the President, while material to the case, does not dictate the dismissal of the present case. The appeal involves the Order dated December 29, 1982 issued by the Bureau of Lands, rejecting Encarnacion Tongson's separate sales application over the same property. This order was affirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in its Decision dated January 14, 1993.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE