JACINTO DECENA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, FAUSTINO BANDALES, AQUILINO SOGONI AND AGAPITO BANDALES, RESPONDENTS.

The spouses Timoteo Bandales and Agatona Decena were owners of three
parcels of land in barrio Lumotan, Atimonan, Quezon: Lots 6715, 6731
and 6772. They executed on February 8, 1938 a so-called “deed of
extrajudicial partition”, purportedly dividing said three lots between
themselves and, furthermore, donating the husband’s share — Lot 6731 —
to Juana Estrada and the share of the wife – Lots 6715 and 6772 — to
Pedro Alcala.

Subsequently, the spouses Timoteo and Agatona died, in 1938 and 1950, respectively, without surviving descendants.

On January 25, 1954, Faustino Bandales, Agapito Bandales and
Aquilino Sogoni – nephews of the deceased spouses – filed Civil Case
No. 5507 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, against the donees
Alcala and Estrada, seeking judicial declaration as heirs of the said
spouses and the annulment of the donation.

After trial the Court of First Instance, on January 7, 1956,
declared Alcala and Estrada the owners of the lots respectively donated
to them. Appeal was taken by the nephews to the Court of Appeals. And
on August 18, 1960, said Court reversed the lower court’s decision,
finding the donation mortis causa, and thus void for want of the
formalities of a will. It declared the nephews-appellants therein, the
legal heirs of the spouses Timoteo and Agatona and the lawful and
exclusive owners of Lots 6715, 6731 and 6772 aforementioned.

Said decision became final. As a result of a writ of execution
thereafter issued, Jacinto Decena – who had been the tenant of Lot 6772 — a coconut land — and part of Lot 6715 — a riceland — since the time
when these were still owned by Timoteo and Agatona — was dispossessed,
in November, 1961, of said landholdings.

Alleging that he was dispossessed in violation of the Agricultural
Tenancy Act (R.A. 1199, as amended by R.A. 2263), Jacinto Decena filed
the present suit for reinstatement and damages through his amended
petition dated February 2, 1962 in the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Fifth Regional District, San Pablo City, against Faustino Bandales,
Agapito Bandales and Aquilino Sogoni.

The respondents were declared in default. Petitioner then adduced
evidence before a commissioner. On February 2, 1963, the Court of
Agrarian Relations issued an order approving the report of the
Commissioner in toto, and dismissing the case upon the sole ground that
petitioner’s previous landholders who entrusted to him the cultivation
of the lands in question were not the true owners or legal possessors
of said lands.

After denial of his motion for reconsideration, Decena took to this Court the present appeal.

Appellant contends that the Agrarian Court erred in ruling that the
person who placed him as tenant of the lands in question was not their
true owner. The record shows the contention to be well taken. The final
decision of the Court of Appeals recognized the previous ownership of
the spouses Timoteo and Agatona Bandales over said lands. Thus, its
dispositive portion stated:

“ACCORDINGLY, we are constrained to reverse the
judgment a quo, and to declare, as we hereby adjudge, the plaintiffs
Faustino Bandales, Agapito Bandales and Aquilino Sogoni as the sole and
rightful heirs of the deceased Timoteo Bandales and Agatona Decena and
as the lawful and exclusive owners by intestate succession of three
lots, 6715, 6731 and 6772 of the Atimonan Cadastre. No pronouncement as
to costs.”

The finding of the court below, upon petitioner’s evidence, is that
the parcels of land involved herein “were entrusted to Jacinto Decena
by Timoteo Bandales way back in 1927″ (CAR Order, p. 1, Annex B to
Petition for Review). The same was therefore entrusted to him by the
true owner of said lands.

This Court has ruled that death of the landholder alone does not
extinguish the tenancy relationship (Ferreria v. Gonzales, 55 O.G.
1358). Furthermore, in view of Section 9 of Republic Act 1199, as
amended by Republic Act 2263, the present landholders assume the rights
and obligations of the former landholder. It provides:

“SEC. 9. Severance of Relations. – The
tenancy relationship is extinguished by the voluntary surrender or
abandonment of the land by, or the death or incapacity of, the tenant:
Provided, That x x x The expiration of the period of the contract as
fixed by the parties, or the sale, alienation or transfer of legal
possession of the land does not of itself extinguish the relationship.
In the latter case, the purchaser or transferee shall assume the rights
and obligations of the former landholder in relation to the tenant. In
case of death of the landholder, his heir or heirs shall likewise
assume his rights and obligations.”

Petitioner, therefore, has a right to continue staying in the lots
as tenant. Anent the respondents’ contention that petitioner should
have pressed his right by filing a third party claim under Section 15,
Rule 39 of the Old Rules of Court, that is, in the proceedings for
execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals, suffice it to note
that said remedy is not exclusive. Section 15, Rule 39 abovementioned
expressly states: “But nothing herein contained shall prevent such
third person from vindicating his claim to the property by any proper
action.”

No damages, however, should be awarded against respondents herein,
since petitioner was ejected by virtue of a writ of execution, and,
therefore, upon court order. Part of the damages being sought refers to
alleged necessary and useful improvements on the lots. Since petitioner
is to be reinstated, such improvements need not now be reimbursed.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and petitioner
is hereby ordered reinstated as tenant of Lot 6772 and part of Lot 6715
described in the amended petition. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., no part.