G.R. NO. 169372 - NARCISO GUIANG, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, FERNANDO T. DULAY, HEIRS OF CARLITO DULAY,REPRESENTED BY CHRISTOPHER S. DULAY, AND HEIRS OF ANDRES DULAY, REPRESENTED BY BEATRIZ DULAY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered: declaring the right of the plaintiff to have a better or superior right than defendants to take possession and cultivation over the land in question, consequently, ordering the said defendants to turn over the possession and cultivation thereof to the plaintiff; ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff actual damages of 48 cavans of palay at 50 kilos per cavan for every cropping (at 2 croppings per year) since 1998 up to the time that said defendants shall surrender the possession and cultivation of the land in question to the plaintiff. ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of P25,000.00 plus appearance fee of counsel in the amount of P1,000.00 for every hearing; ordering the defendants to pay the cost of this suit. [6] In their Answer, the Dulays alleged that in the 1998 harvest season, they had informed Guiang that his share of the produce was ready for delivery. However, Guiang refused to accept his share because he wanted the property vacated. The Dulays were then impelled to deposit the rentals with the Land Bank of the Philippines. They further insisted that in 1999 and 2000, Guiang received rentals over the property and signed receipts therefor. By way of special and affirmative defenses, the Dulays alleged the following: That while it is true that defendants acquired title on their respective parcel of land, the same is not controlling because they never enforce their right thereto as owner and can be shown in their acts of giving the necessary rental to the actual owner which is the plaintiff; That defendants' act of bringing the matter for mediation at the Office of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and admitting therein to be tenants of these parcel of land and not as owners clearly indicates that they were not repudiating the right of the plaintiff but only to enforce their right as tenants and nothing else; That to eject these defendants who are poor farmers from their actual cultivation on the said parcel of land without giving them the usual "DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION" is tantamount to giving them the penalty of death. [7] The Dulays failed to allege that they had already acquired ownership over the property as early as 1987, based on the emancipation patents approved by the President and the subsequent issuance of the TCTs in their favor. A copy of the lease contract was appended to the Answer as Annex "A." However, copies of the titles issued in favor of defendants were not appended to the Answer. The Dulays prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered in their favor, thus: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered: declaring the defendants to be the tenants of the plaintiff and to recognize the "LEASE AGREEMENT" to be valid and enforceable; d