G.R. NO. 144071 - SPOUSES ALEJANDRO A. JOSON AND LOURDES SAMSON, VS. REYNALDO MENDOZA AND AGAPITO LAQUINDANUM.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered: Ordering the petitioner to recognize Reynaldo Mendoza as his new tenant; Ordering the MARO of Malolos, Bulacan to execute a new Agricultural Leasehold Contract in favor of Reynaldo Mendoza; Ordering petitioner to cease and desist in interfering/molesting herein respondents' peaceful occupation over the subject landholding; No pronouncement of costs. [7] In due time, petitioners appealed the PARAD Decision to the DARAB. On 21 July 1997, the DARAB modified the decision dated 24 January 1995 of the PARAD. The DARAB held that although the agricultural lessee Pastor Mendoza has, indeed, abandoned the landholding in question and although the other appellees ( i.e. , now respondents) are not tenant-farmers on the subject land but are mere farm workers or actual tillers thereon, petitioners are, nonetheless, barred from recovering possession of the landholding in question, although they are the owners thereof, in view of the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL), which grants to the said appellees the protection of being secured in their farming activities in the landholding in question. The dispositive portion of the DARAB's Decision [8] reads: WHEREFORE, in conformity with the above-stated ruling of the Hon. Supreme Court in the afore-quoted case, the assailed Decision dated January 24, 1995 is hereby MODIFIED. The parties plaintiffs-appellants as landowners and defendant-appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum are enjoined to observe the status quo on the landholding in question, that is, said appellees to work on the said land and pay the lease rentals while the appellants to maintain them in peaceful possession and tilling on the said landholding, subject to whatever disposition the Department of Agrarian Reform may take on the land in question. Without pronouncement as to costs. [9] Ruling of the Court of Appeals On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision affirming the decision of the DARAB. Without expressly debunking the finding of the DARAB that petitioners gave no consent, whether express or implied, to the respondents' tillage of petitioners' land, the Court of Appeals found that petitioners were, nevertheless, estopped from now asserting ignorance of Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum's occupancy and tillage of the land in controversy inasmuch as they have been receiving lease rentals from Reynaldo Mendoza for years. The fallo of the Decision of the Court of Appeals provided: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed decision dated July 21, 1997 and the Resolution dated March 30, 1998 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 3414 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs. [10] The Issue Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution [11] dated 05 July 2000. Hence, in this quest for a