G.R. No. 178622 - LUCIANO LADANO,[1], VS. FELINO NERI, EDWIN SOTO, ADAN ESPANOLA,[2] AND ERNESTO BLANCO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the July 6, 2005 Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, in DARAB Case No. 13172, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered DISMISSING the April 1, 2004 complaint filed by respondent Luciano Ladano. SO ORDERED . [9] Factual Antecedents This case originated from a Complaint [10] filed by petitioner Luciano Ladano (Ladano) before the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator against respondents Felino Neri (Neri), Edwin Soto, Adan Espanola and Ernesto Blanco. Ladano alleged that on May 7, 2003, the respondents forcibly entered the two-hectare land, located in Manalite I, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City, which he and his family have been peaceably occupying and cultivating since 1970. The said respondents informed him that the property belongs to Neri and that he should vacate the same immediately. Not too long afterwards, the respondents fenced the property and destroyed some of the trees and kawayan planted thereon. Ladano prayed that he be declared the rightful occupant/tiller of the property, with the right to security of tenure thereon. In the alternative that the judgment is in the respondents favor, he prayed that the respondents compensate him for the improvements that he introduced in the property. Respondents countered that Ladanos Complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. [11] He is not entitled to the reliefs he sought because he does not have, as he did not even allege having, a leasehold arrangement with Neri, the supposed owner of the land he is occupying. [12] Instead of arguing that he has a right to remain on the property as its bona fide tenant, Ladano maintained that he has been its possessor in good faith for more than 30 years. He believed then that the property was part of the public land and [was] open to anybody. [13] As a possessor and builder in good faith, he cannot be removed from the subject property without being compensated for the improvements that he had introduced. [14] He prayed for an award of P100,000.00 as disturbance compensation. [15] Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator On June 23, 2004, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed Ladanos Complaint. [16] She determined that the two-hectare property, while agricultural, is not covered by RA No. 6657, as amended, [17] which only covers agricultural properties beyond five hectares. [18] Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended, [19] does not apply either because the property was not planted with rice and corn. Neither is it covered by other agrarian tenancy laws because Ladano had not presented any evidence of his tenancy relationship with the landowner. [20] The Provincial Adjudicator disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE , in view therefrom, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [21] Ladano appealed to the DARAB Central Office (DARAB). [22] He questioned Neris title to the property and Neris right to eject him therefrom. He maintai