G.R. No. 134742 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that, after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants as follows: Ordering defendants to vacate the areas they respectively occupy in Lot No. 343 and to return the same to plaintiff; Ordering defendants to pay to plaintiff P 10,000.00 as litigation expenses; P 50,000.00 as attorneys fees, plus P 1,000.00 for every court appearance and P 20,000.00 as exemplary damages. Plaintiff prays for such other reliefs and remedies just and equitable in the premises. [7] Appended to the complaint was a photocopy of TCT No. 133298. In their answer with motion to dismiss the complaint, the petitioners, who were represented by DAR lawyer Atty. Quirico Infante, alleged that the landholding had long been placed under Operation Land Transfer, and that they became the owners thereof under Presidential Decree No. 27. They interposed the following special and affirmative defenses: - That the landholding, subject matter of the case more particularly described as Lot No. 343, has been placed within the ambit of the Operation Land Transfer program per P.D. 27 as amended; - That defendants herein are actual-occupants and tenant-tillers of the land wayback in [the] 1970s, having been installed thereat by Lorenzo Zayco, the original landowner with the defendants sharing [with] the landowner the produce of the land up to 1981 as evidenced by receipts which will be presented in due time; - That being bonafide tenant-tillers thereat, they were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform as qualified farmers-beneficiaries and consequently were issued Emancipation Patents; - That in 1982-83, the subject landholding was conveyed by way of sale by the former landowner to J. Salgado; - That despite the sale thereof to the plaintiff herein, defendants continued to cultivate the land and extend payment of lease rentals to the new landowner thereof; - That in 1988-1989, being beneficiaries of the program, caused to directly pay their amortization to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); - That defendants, having been issued EPs, are therefore considered owners of the land and now deemed full owners of the land they till as provided for under P.D. 27 and E.O. 328 respectively, thus, cannot be ejected/ousted therefrom without circumventing their right to [s]ecurity of tenure as amplified in the case of De Jesus vs. IAC, SCRA 559 (sic) and Dolorfino vs. CA, 191 SCRA 880, Dec. 3, 1990, where the Highest Tribunal ruled that: Once a leasehold relation has been established, the agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure. He has a right to continue working on the land and he may not be ejected therefrom except for cause as provided by law. The agricultural relationship is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. The purchaser or transferee is simply subjugated to the rights and substituted t