SPS. JOSE S. VELASQUEZ AND JUSTINA ADVINCULA-VELASQUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. MARTIN NERY AND LEONCIA DE LEON NERY; AND ROSARIO LORENZO, SALUD RODRIGUEZ, VDA. DE LORENZO, MARIAN…

Petitioners Jose Velasquez and Justina Velasquez are the
agricultural lessees of a certain riceland consisting of 51,538 square meters,
situated at Sitio Malaking Kahoy, Bo. Ibayo, Parañaque, Metro Manila. The subject property was originally
possessed and claimed by respondent Martin Nery. In an action for annulment and reconveyance, the Supreme Court
finally decide^[1]
and declared in 1972, that private respondents Lorenzos are co-owners of the
land together with Martin Nery. They
applied for the confirmation of their title with the then Court of First
Instance of Rizal and the parcel of land was subsequently registered under TCT
No. 64132. The title was issued in the
name of following respondents, spouses Martin Nery and Leoncia de Leon Nery,
Salud Rodriguez, Gertrudes de Leon, Rosario, Mariano, Pacifico, Onofre, Loloy,
Trinidad, Dionisio, Perfecto, Maria Rebecca, Asuncion, Mauro and Lourdes all
surnamed Lorenzo.

In 1978, respondents Lorenzos filed an action for partition against
their co-owners Martin and Leoncia Nery which was docketed as Civil Case No.
5313-P before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch. In a compromise agreement^[2]
submitted by the parties, the latter agreed to sell the said land to respondent
Delta Motors Corporation.

On August 24, 1979, petitioner Jose B. Velasquez, in his capacity
as agricultural leasehold tenant, filed an action before the then Court of
Agrarian Relations against private respondents, which was docketed as CAR Case
No. 42, 6th Regional District, Branch I, Quezon City for the redemption of the
subject property, as he has information that the said land is offered for sale.

On January 25, 1980, private respondent Delta Motor Corporation
purchased the subject property for P2,319,210.00, evidenced by a Deed of Sale^[3]
and was issued TCT No. 26486 by
the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila on March 4, 1980.

Petitioner Jose S. Velasquez seeks to redeem the said land from
Delta Motors for the sum of P8,800.00 anchoring his right under Presidential
Decree No. 27.

The then Court of Agrarian
Relations rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground that the
reasonable value of the land is P2,319,210.00 and not P8,800.00, the dipositive
portion of which reads:

“Foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Dismissing the instant
action for lack of interest on plaintiff’s part to redeem the land in question at its acquisition price in the
amount of P2,319,210.00, which we find reasonable;

2. Directing defendants to
maintain plaintiff as agricultural lessee in the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the land subject matter of this litigation containing an area of
51,538 square meters, more or less, covered by TCT No. 64132 and to respect the rights accorded to him as such
by law.

3. Directing the Clerk of
Court, this Court, (sic) to return to plaintiff the amount of P600.00 which he
consigned with the Court as part of the redemption price for the land in
question covered by OR No. 2402913 dated June 13, 1980.

4. Dismissing all other
claims and counterclaims for lack of evidence in support thereof.”^[4]

Petitioner appealed the case to the then Intermediate Appellate
Court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court, as follows:

“IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appeals interposed by the plaintiffs
(sic) and the defendants Martin Nery, Leoncia de Leon Nery, Dionisio, Perfecto,
Maria, Rebecca, Lourdes, Asuncion and Mauro, all surnamed Lorenzo, are both
dismissed for lack of merit. We affirm in
toto the Decision in CAR Case No. 42.”^[5]

Not satisfied with the decision of the appellate court,
petitioners now elevated the case to this court in a petition for review on certiorari.

We find no merit in the instant petition.

The issues raised by the petitioners before Us is but a
reiteration of the issues they have raised before the defunct Court of Agrarian
Relations and the then Intermediate Appellate Court. The main issue in the instant case however, is whether or not the
subject property is covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 or Republic Act 6389.

Petitioners contend that they should be declared owners of the
land pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. But as aptly found by the Court of Agrarian Relations, the land in
question is not covered by Operation Land Transfer.^[6]

The agricultural land involved in this case consists of 51,538
square meters or about 5.15 hectares. The retention limit provided by P.D. No. 27 is seven (7) hectares. The law provides:

“In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more
than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now
cultivate it.”

Clearly, the property in question is not covered by P.D. No. 27
but by Section 12 of RA 6389, as amended, which provides:

“In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the
knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem
the same at a reasonable price and consideration x x x. The redemption price shall be the reasonable
price of the land at the time of the sale.”

Thus, in its discussion as to what is the “reasonable
price” as provided under Section 12 of RA 6389, the Intermediate Appellate
Court stated:

“Under this Section, the redemption price shall be the
“reasonable price” of the land at the time of the sale. We are not convinced that the price of
P2,319,210.00 fixed by the court at quo (sic) as redemption price is
unreasonable. The subject land
consisting of 51,538 square meters is located in Parañaque, Metro Manila, near
the South Diversion Road, surrounded by residential subdivisions and by industrial
firms. The above-quoted price is the
same amount paid by Delta Motors Corporation to the other defendants. There is no showing that the price is a
product of collusion between Delta Motors and the other defendants.”^[7]

We agree with the findings of the defunct Court of Agrarian
Relations and the then Intermediate Appellate Court, that the reasonable
redemption price of the land is P2,319,210, which is the amount or
consideration at the time of the sale.

Petitioners claim that the transfer of the land by the
respondents Nery and Lorenzo’s in favor of Delta Motor Corporation is null and
void ab initio on the ground that the transfer was not accompanied by an
affidavit of non-tenancy as required by Republic Act 6389 and Circular No. 31
of the Department of Justice. What
militates against this claim of the petitioners is the evidence borne by the
records that the transfer was effected through a judgment^[8] of
the respondent lower court in a civil case, and not through a sale as
envisioned by Republic Act No. 6389. Though the date of the sale was earlier than
the date of the judgment, it is correct to say that the transfer was effected
through a judgment, because the sale must be approved by the court, considering
the pendency of a case (partition) before the court that issued the
judgment. Moreover, there is nothing in
the Act declaring any sale or transfer as null and void ab initio when the sale
was without the knowledge of the lessee. As a matter of fact, Republic Act No. 6389 states the remedy available
to the agricultural lessee, the petitioners herein, which is to redeem the land
based on the reasonable price at the time of the sale and not to seek the
declaration of nullity of the alleged sale.

Further, the review sought by petitioners does not fall under any
of the grounds warranting the exercise of this Court’s discretionary
power. The matter of what is the
reasonable redemption price being factual, precludes this Court from reviewing
the factual findings of the appellate court. The findings and conclusions of the Intermediate Appellate Court that
the sum of P2, 319,210 is the “reasonable price” is supported by
evidence. The land being located in
Parañaque, surrounded by residential subdivisions and industrial firms near the
South Diversion road are factors in determining its reasonable price for sale
or for redemption as in the instant case. It is the established doctrine in this jurisdiction supported by
unbroken line of decisions that such findings of facts and conclusions can not
be reviewed on appeal by certiorari.^[9]

As a general rule, the findings of facts of the Court of Agrarian
Relations will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence
to support the same and all that this Court is called upon to do insofar as the
evidence is concerned, is to find out if the conclusion of the lower court is
supported by “substantial evidence”.^[10]
Substantial evidence in support of the findings of the Court of Agrarian
Relations does not necessarily import preponderant evidence as is required in
ordinary civil cases. Substantial
evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and its absence is not shown by
stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial,
for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criterion for
that of the trial court in determining wherein lies the weight of evidence or
what evidence is entitled to belief.^[11]

Noteworthy mentioning is that the Philippine National Bank (PNB),
although not a party to the instant case, has extra-judicially foreclosed the
subject property, and will consolidate its ownership thereof if private
respondent Delta Motor Corporation does not redeem the same within one year. Still, petitioners are protected in their rights as agricultural
lessees pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, which
provides:

“Sec. 10. Agricultural Leasehold
Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. – The agricultural leasehold
relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the
term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the
landholding. In case the agricultural lessor, sells, alienates or
transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee
thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substitutes to the obligations of
the agricultural lessor.”

Because of the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage over
the subject property by the Philippine National Bank, the present case has
become moot and academic with regard to petitioner’s claim against Delta Motor
Corporation. It is now the PNB or its
subsequent transferees from whom the petitioners must redeem, if and when PNB
decides to sell or alienate the subject property in the future, and of course
subject to the provisions of the 1975 Revised Charter of the Philippine
National Bank.^[12]

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari
is hereby DISMISSED and the appealed decision of the then Intermediate
Appellate Court which affirmed the decision of the defunct Court of Agrarian
Relations is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.