GABRIEL MARUKOT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AMADO JACINTO AND THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. LORENZO BALTAZAR, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. AMADO JACINTO AND …

Lots Nos. 35-B, 35-D and 35-E are portions of lot No. 35, block No. 12 of the
Tambobong Estate located in Malabon, Rizal, and containing an area of some 500
square meters. Lot No. 35-B contains an area of about 100 square meters, lot No.
35-D an area of about 40 square meters, and lot No. 35-E an area of about 70
square meters. Gabriel Marukot has held possession of lot 35-B since 1940,
having a house thereon wherein he and his family have been residing. Felipe
Baisa has held possession of lot No. 35-D since 1946, having a house thereon
wherein he and his family have been residing. Lorenzo Baltazar has held
possession of lot No. 35-E since 1944, having a house thereon wherein he and his
family have been residing.

The Tambobong Estate was purchased by the Government from the Roman Catholic
Church on December 31, 1947, under the provisions of section 1 of Commonwealth
Act 539, which authorizes the President of the Philippines “to acquire private
lands or any interest therein, through purchase or expropriation, and to
subdivide the same into home lots or small farms for resale at reasonable prices
and under such conditions as he may fix to their bona fide tenants or
occupants or to private individuals who will work the lands themselves and who
are qualified to acquire and own lands in the Philippines.” In due time, Amado
Jacinto filed an application with the Rural Progress Administration for the
purchase of lot No. 35 (including of course lots Nos. 35-B, 35-D and 35-E),
claiming that he and his predecessors in interest have held possession thereof
as lessees who paid corresponding rentals to the former owners of the Tambobong
Estate. Gabriel Marukot, Felipe Baisa and Lorenzo Baltazar filed their
oppositions to Jacinto’s application with respect to the portions actually
occupied by them. The Bureau of Lands, which took over the functions of the
Rural Progress Administration, rendered a decision on December 22, 1951,
dismissing the oppositions and adjudicating to Amado Jacinto lot No. 35 in its
entirety. Gabriel Marukot, Felipe Baisa and Lorenzo Baltazar instituted in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal separate actions against Jacinto and the
Director of Lands, for the purpose of having said adjudication annuled, and
obtaining a declaration that they are entitled to purchase the lots respectively
occupied by them. After joint trial, a decision was rendered, with the following
dispositive parts:

“In view of the. foregoing, the Court, in Civil Case No. 1705,
hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants,
declaring; as null and void the adjudication dated December 22, 1951, made by
the Director of Lands in favor of the defendant Amado Jacinto of lot 35-D, Block
12 of the Tambobong Estate;’ declaring the plaintiff entitled to purchase said
lot 35-D, block 12; and ordering the defendant Director of Lands to approve the
application of Felipe Baisa to purchase lot 35-D, block 12. Without any
pronouncement as to costs.

“In Civil Case No. 1696, the Court hereby renders judgment. in favor of the
plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring as null and void the
adjudication dated December 22, 1951, made by the Director of Lands in favor of
the defendant Amado Jacinto of lot 35-E, block 12 of the Tambobong Estate,
declaring the plaintiff’ entitled to’ purchase said lot 35-E; block 12 of the
Tambobong Kstate; and ordering the defendant Director of Lands to approve the
application of Lorenzo Baltazar to purchase said lot 35-E, block 12. Without
pronouncement as to costs.

“In Civil Case No. 1690, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the
plaintiff Gabriel Marukot and against the defendants, declaring as null and void
the adjudication dated December 22, 1951, made by the Director of Lands in favor
of the defendant Amado Jacinto of lot 35-B, block 12 of the Tambobong Estatfe;
declaring the plaintiff entitled to purchase said lot 35-B, block 12; and
ordering the defendant Director of Lands to approve the application of Gabriel
Marukot to purchase lot 35-B, block 12. Without any pronouncement as to costs.”

Both Amado Jacinto and the Director of Lands appealed to the Court of
Appeals, on the ground that the decision is contrary to the facts and the law.
Said Court, in its resolution of March 8, 1954, however certified me case to us,
because in the light of the findings of the trial court and the assignments of
error in appellant’s briefs, no question of fact is involved and the whole
controversy boils down to a purely legal question, namely, who is entitled to
preference in the purchase of lots 35-B, 35-D and 35-E: the plaintiffs-appellees
who are sublessees but the actual occupants, of the defendant-appellant Amado
Jacinto who is the lessee but not in possession.

As a matter of fact, there is no dispute that appellant Jacinto was the
lessee of the entire lot. No. 35, who had paid rentals thereon prior to the
acquisition by the Government of the Tambobong Estate; that since 1931, he has
lived in his house built on his lot located in Caloocan, Rizal; that the three
appellees Gabriel Marukot, Felipe Baisa and Lorenzo Baltazar have respectively
occupied lots 35-B, 35-D and 35-E, the first since 1940, the second since 1946,
and the third, since 1944, and all the three have their own houses thereon and
have been paying rentals as sublessees of appellant Jacinto.

In our opinion,, the trial court did not err in giving judgment in favor of
the appellees. It is not necessary to decide herein whether a “tenant” should
enjoy priority over an “occupant” who is a sublessee, because the effect of the
appealed decision is to accommodate both; and this certainly cannot be said to
be violative of the intents and purposes of Commonwealth Act No. 539. It is
striking to note that appellant Jacinto even gets about 300 square meters, or
100 square, meters in excess of the total area of the three lots awarded by the
trial court to the three appellees.

The appellees are unquestionably bona fide occupants within the
meaning of Commonwealth Act No. 539 because they have their respective houses on
the lots sublet to them by the tenant Amado Jacinto; and there is absolutely no
showing that they were ordered to vacate either before or after the acquisition
by the Government of the Tambobong Estate. These circumstances differentiate the
cases at bar from Enrique Bernardo, et al. vs. Crisostomo S. Bernardo,
et al., 96 Phil, 202 decided on November 29, 1954, wherein the majority of this
Court awarded the lot there in question (containing an area of only 208 square
meters) to the tenant or lessee, as against the actual occupant (1) who remained
on the lot due to the tolerance of, and out of charity from, the lessee; (2) who
had already sold his house thereon to the tenant or lessee prior to the purchase
in 1947 by the Government of the Tambobong Estate; (3) who since 1945 had been
required by the tenant or lessee to vacate.

The cases now before us are also distinguishable from G. R. No. L-8032,
Crisostomo Grande vs. Dalisay Santos and Director of Lands, and G. E.
No. L-8033, Domingo Josef vs. Dalisay Santos and Director of Lands,^[*] decided on December 10, 1955, wherein we.
awarded the lot therein involved to the lessee, and not to the latter’s
sublessees, it appearing that the lot contains a total area of only 144 square
meters and that “pursuant to the stipulation of facts, Dalisay Santos is not an
absentee owner, but an actual occupant of part of said lot.”

It is also contended that the appellees should have first appealed the
decision of the Bureau of Lands to the higher administrative authority, and
their failure to do so rendered said decision final. In reply it is sufficient
to state that the matter in controversy did not fall within the purview of the
Public Land Act, and was under the cognizance of the Rural Progress
Administration, the functions of which were only assumed subsequently by the
Bureau of Lands. Moreover, there is no pretense that the alleged administrative
remedy has been made a condition precedent to the filing of a judicial
action.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed and it is so ordered without
costs.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

---

^[*] Supra, p. 62.