G.R. No. 164912 - PAG-ASA FISHPOND CORPORATION, VS. BERNARDO JIMENEZ, ROBERT BELENBOUGH, LEONARD MIJARES, EDUARDO JIMENEZ, JOSE CRUZ, ELIZALDE EDQUIBAL, DOMINADOR ELGINCOLIN AND GERONIMO DARILAG. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on April 25, 1994, they filed a complaint directly against petitioner for maintenance of possession before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) in Iba, Zambales. [11] In their complaint, they contended, inter alia , that they are entitled to security of tenure; and that the fishpond is covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under R.A. No. 6657. They prayed that the entire fishpond of petitioner be placed under the coverage of the CARP; that they be considered as farmer beneficiaries who are entitled to be awarded the fishpond; and that they be allowed to remain in possession of the fishpond. [12] In its Answer, petitioner averred that its lessees over the fishpond were only David Jimenez and one Noel Hilario and that its lease agreement with said lessees was not agrarian but civil in nature. It also posited that the fishpond, being a commercial one, is not yet subject to compulsory acquisition under the CARP pursuant to Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657. [13] Petitioner alleged that respondents' entry into and occupation of the fishpond, as well as their enjoyment of the fish produced, was without its knowledge and consent. [14] On July 18, 1994, the PARAD ruled in favor of petitioner (defendant) and against respondents (plaintiffs), dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The fallo of the PARAD's decision reads: WHEREFORE, this Forum is constrained to rule out plaintiffs' allegation as a regular farmworker pursuant to R.A. 6657 and/or tenants of herein defendant and to deny prayer for placing the landholding of the defendant under CARP coverage which is purely administrative and only cognizable by the Department of Agrarian Reform, as there are no concrete evidence. Thus, a judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING plaintiffs' complaint for lack of merit. SO DECIDED. [15] The PARAD ruled that respondents are not agricultural leasehold tenants who may be entitled to security of tenure. According to the PARAD, petitioner, as landowner, did not consent to the hiring of respondents, as farmworkers, by its civil law lessee, David Jimenez. The PARAD declared: The original lessees in the Contract of Lease (Annex "A") with the lessor-defendant are David Jimenez and Noel Hilario, who are both residents of Obando, Bulacan. The said contract expired on May 01, 1994. Paragraph 7 of the contract of lease provides that, "consequently, the lessees shall not sublet the property, nor allow any person, firm or corporation to occupy the same in whole or in part nor shall the lessees assign in whole or in part any of their right under this Contract and no right or interest thereto or therein shall be conferred or vested in anyone by the lessees either by operation of law or otherwise." The provision was totally violated by the lessee David Jimenez when the plaintiff(s) were admittedly hired as farmworkers. The plaintiffs consist of David Jimenez' sons Bernardo and Eduardo Jimenez, his son-in-law Leonard Mijares and