G.R. No. L-29381. September 30, 1969
PHILLIPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS AND PANTALEON BINGABING, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. VALERIANO A. DEL VALLE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS AND PAMPILO D…
SANCHEZ, J.:
The decisive issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not
the strips of land owned by Philippine National Railways (PNR) which are on
both sides of its railroad track, and are part of its right of way for its
railroad operations but temporarily leased, are agricultural lands within the
purview of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
such as would come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.
The facts of this particular case are these:
PNR, a government-owned corporation, is the registered owner of
three (3) strips of land with a uniform width of 30 meters adjoining one
another longitudinally, the same being part of its railroad right of way
running from Manila to Legazpi. These strips of land lie within the
municipalities of Oas and Polangui,
Province of Albay. At the center thereof is a track measuring
ten (10) to twelve (12) meters in width where railroad ties are placed and
rails built for running locomotives. On
both sides of the track, or about two (2) to five (5) meters away from the
embankment of the track, are telegraph and telephone posts fifty (50) meters
apart from each other, which maintain communication wires necessary in the
operation of PNR trains. PNR draws earth
from these sides to fill up the railroad track whenever it is destroyed by
water during rainy days; and uses them as depository of railroad materials for
the repair of destroyed lines, posts, bridges during washouts, or other damaged
parts of the line occasioned by derailments or other calamities.
The portions of these lands not actually occupied by the railroad
track had been a source of trouble.
People occupied them; they reap profits therefrom.
Disputes among those desiring to occupy them cropped up. It is on the face of all these that, with
adequate provisions to safeguard railroad operations, PNR adopted temporary
rules and regulations, as follows: (a)
the possession and enjoyment of the property should be awarded to interested
persons thru competitive public bidding; (b) the rental of the premises is to
be determined from the amount offered by the highest bidder; (c) the duration
of the lease shall be for a limited period, not to exceed three (3) years; (d)
the lessee cannot sublease the premises; (e) the lease contract is revocable at
any time upon demand by the owner, whenever it needs the same for its own use
or for a more beneficial purpose; (f) the owner can enter the leased premises
during the period of the lease to make necessary repairs; and (g) the lessee
shall not use the premises in a manner prejudicial to the operation of the
trains.
Sometime in 1963, PNR awarded the portions of the three strips of
land aforementioned which are on both sides of the track, after a competitive
public bidding, to petitioner Pantaleon Bingabing for a period of three (3) years and under
conditions hereinbefore set forth. A
civil law lease contract in printed form was, on April 15, 1963, entered into by and between PNR and Bingabing. That
contract expressly stipulates that Bingabing was ‘to
occupy and use the property x x x
temporarily for agriculture.” Consideration therefor
was P130.00 per annum. Bingabing, however, failed to take possession because
respondent Pampilo Doltz
was occupying the land, had a house thereon.
Doltz claims to be a tenant of previous
awardees, and later, of Bingabing himself.
Sometime in March 1965, PNR and Bingabing
filed suit against Doltz for recovery of possession
of the premises in the Court of First Instance of Albay.[1]
They there averred that sometime in January 1963, Doltz
illegally entered the land, constructed a house thereon occupying about fifty
(50) square meters, and planted palay on the other
portions thereof. They prayed that Doltz remove his house, vacate the premises, restore possession
to PNR or Bingabing, pay PNR P160 per annum as reasonable
compensation for the occupation of the premises from January 1963, and P2,000
as expenses of litigation, pay Bingabing P500
annually from 1963, and shoulder the costs of suit.
Doltz‘ answer in that case averred, inter
alia, that he had been a tenant on the
property for over twenty years; that he had been placed thereon by the deceased
Pablo Gomba who leased the, property from the then
Manila Railroad Company (now PNR); that he became the tenant of Demetrio de Vera, Gomba’s
successor; that he is the tenant of Bingabing, having
given the latter’s share of 1/3 during the last two harvests; and that the case
is properly cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations. Upon the court’s request, Doltz
and Bingabing agreed to temporarily liquidate the
harvest on a sharing ratio of 70-30 in Doltz‘ favor.
It has been suggested in the record that said case – Civil Case
3021 – was dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Albay
upon the ground that the subject matter of the action is tenancy; that
petitioners have appealed. That case,
parenthetically, has not yet reached this Court.
While the aforesaid Civil Case 3021 was pending in the Albay court of first instance, Doltz
registered with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) a petition against Bingabing for security of tenure, the adoption of a sharing
ratio of 70-30 of the crops, and reliquidation of
past harvests. This is the present case
– CAR Case 692, Albay ’67, Court of Agrarian Relations,
Ninth Regional District, Legazpi
City, Branch II, entitled “Pampilo Doltz, Petitioner, versus
Pantaleon Bingabing,
Respondent.” PNR intervened in the case.
Petitioners herein there maintained the position that the premises in
controversy are not an agricultural land within the contemplation of the
Agricultural Tenancy Act (Republic Act 1199) or the Agricultural Land Reform
Code (Republic Act 3844); that no tenancy relationship existed between the
parties; that CAR, therefore, lacked jurisdiction over the case; and that there
is a pending case between the same parties in another court involving the same
subject matter and the same cause of action.
After trial, the CAR promulgated its decision of June 10, 1968. It upheld its jurisdiction over the case,
maintained Doltz in the peaceful possession of the
parcels of land as tenant on a 70-30 sharing ratio in Doltz‘
favor, ordered Bingabing to pay Doltz
P250 attorneys’ fees and the costs, but dismissed the latter’s claim for reliquidation of past harvests for lack of substantial
evidence. Petitioners’ move to reconsider the said decision failed. They now come to this Court. They specifically question CAR’s jurisdiction.
1. Is the land here involved an agricultural land within the
meaning of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the Agricultural Land Reform Code?
According to Section 3 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act,
“[a]gricultural tenancy is the physical
possession by a person of land devoted to agriculture belonging to, or
legally possessed by, another for the purpose of production through the labor
of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household, in
consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter,
or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or
in both.”[2]
The term “agricultural land” as understood by the Agricultural
Land Reform Code is not as broad in meaning as it is known
in the constitutional sense. As
interpreted in Krivenko vs. Register
of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461, 471, the phrase “agricultural
land”, constitutionally speaking, includes all lands that are neither
mineral nor timber lands and embraces within its wide sweep not only lands
strictly agricultural or devoted to cultivation for agricultural purposes but
also commercial, industrial, residential lands and lands for other purposes.
On the other hand, by Section 166(1) of the Agricultural Land Reform
Code, “[a]gricultural land’ means land devoted
to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands,
salt beds, fish ponds, idle land and abandoned land as defined in paragraphs 18
and 19 of this section, respectively.”[3]
It is obvious then that under the law, the land here in
controversy does not fit into the concept of agricultural land. PNR cannot devote it to agricultural because
by its own charter, Republic Act 4156, PNR cannot engage in agriculture.
Indeed, the land – which adjoins the railroad track on both sides
– is part of PNR’s right of way. That right of way is not limited to the
particular space occupied by the roadbed or its main track. It also includes
the portions occupied by the telephone and telegraph posts. It extends to a width of 30 meters which
reasonably gives the train locomotive engineer a clear commanding view of the
track and its switches ahead of him.
The entire width is important to PNR’s
railroad operations. Which should not
be hampered. And, communication lines
must not be disturbed. Buildings should
not be constructed so close to the track.
Because, it is not so easy to prevent people from walking along the
track; animals, too, may stray into the area; obstructions there could be along
the track itself which might cause derailment.
All of these could prevent the locomotive engineer from taking the necessary
precautions on time to avert accidents which may cause damage to the trains,
injury to its passengers, and even loss of life.
Besides, the use of the strips of land on both sides of the track
in railroad operation is inconsistent with agricultural activities. The contract of lease authorizes the railroad
company to enter upon the premises to make repairs, place its materials on the
land. It may even take soil from the land to fill up any part of the railroad
track destroyed by water during rainy days.
What if PNR should decide to construct another parallel track on the
land leased? The occupant of the land
cannot prevent or stop PNR from doing any of these. Security of tenure so
important in landlord-tenant relationship may not thus be attained.
The foregoing are considerations sufficient enough to deter us
from adopting the view that the disputed land – in narrow strips – is
agricultural land within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the
Agricultural Land Reform Code. By destination, it is not agricultural,
2. Nor may Pampilo Doltz
be considered as a true and lawful tenant.
To be borne in mind is the fact that PNR executed with Pantaleon Bingabing a civil law
lease contract, not an agricultural lease.
This distinction is expressly recognized by the law.[4] That
contract is temporary, at best for a short term. It is revocable any time upon demand by PNR
whenever it needs the same for its own use or for a more beneficial purpose.
Even on the assumption that the land is agricultural, there is
the circumstance that PNR prohibits the sublease of the premises. PNR’s lessees
cannot give what they are not allowed to give.
Any contract then of sublease between Doltz
the supposed tenant, and Pablo Gomba or Demetrio de Vera the previous awardees, or even of Pantaleon Bingabing the present awardee – without PNR’s consent –
cannot bind the latter. No such consent was here given.
This ushers us to a principle shaped out by jurisprudence that
the security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy law may be invoked only by
tenants de jure, not by those who are
not true and lawful tenants.[5]
In Pabustan vs. De Guzman,
L-12898, August 31, 1960,
the tenant sublet the landholding to a third person without the knowledge and
consent of the landowner. In an ejectment suit brought by the landowner against said third
person in the CAR, this Court held that the CAR had no jurisdiction over the
case because no tenancy relationship existed between the parties, as the third
person was, in reality, an unlawful squatter or intruder. Correlating Pabustan
to the present case, the lessee here had no power to sublet. There is also thus no legally cognizable
relationship of tenancy between the parties.
We, accordingly, rule that CAR, does not have jurisdiction over
the case at bar and the proceedings below are thus null and void.
For the reasons given, the judgment of the Court of
Agrarian Relations of June 10, 1968
in its Case 692, Albay ’67, under review is hereby
reversed, and said case is hereby dismissed.
Costs against private respondent Pampilo
Doltz.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Reyes, JBL, J., on leave.
[1]
Civil Case 3021, Court of First Instance of Albay,
Branch II, entitled “Philippine National Railways and Pantaleon
Bingabing, Plaintiffs, versus Pampilo Doltz, Defendant.”
[2]
Emphasis supplied.
[3]
Emphasis supplied. Paragraphs 18 and 19
of Section 166, Agricultural Land Reform Code, provide:
“(18) ‘Idle lands’ means land
not devoted directly to any crop or to any definite economic purpose for at
least one year prior to the notice of expropriation except for reasons other
than force majeure or any other fortuitous
event but used to be devoted or is suitable to such crop or is contiguous to
land devoted directly to any crop and does not include land devoted permanently
or regularly to other essential and more productive purpose.
(19) ‘Abandoned lands’ means lands
devoted to any crop at least one year prior to the notice of expropriation but
which was not utilized by the owner for his benefit for the past five years
prior to such notice of expropriation “
[4]
Section 166(2), Agriculrural Land Reform Code,
reads: “‘Agricultural lessee’
means a person who, by himself and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by,
another with the latter’s consent for purposes of production, for a price
certain in money or in produce or both. It is distinguished from civil law lessee
as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines.”
[5] Dumlao vs. De Guzman (1961), 1 SCRA 144, 147; Lastimoza vs. Blanco (1961), 1 SCRA 231, 234.