G.R. No.

L-54106 February 16, 1982

LUCRECIO PATRICIO, SEGUNDO DALIGDIG,

FRANCISCO DALIGDIG, FLORENCIO ARELLANO and
EPIFANIO DALIGDIG, petitioners,
vs.
ISABELO BAYOG, CONRADA, PEDRO, EMILIO,
ALFONSO, DIONISIO and ARSENIO, all surnamed
MENDEZ, and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

Liane M. Enriquez
JD2-A
This is a case where two competing
interests have to be weighed against each
other: the tenant's right to security of
tenure as against the right of the
homesteader or his heirs to own a piece of
land for their residence and livelihood.
Facts:

As a result of the sale by the Mendez

spouses of the 23-hectare homestead to
the Lamberangs in 1956, the following
actions were filed: an action to annul the
sale filed by Mendez and his children; an
ejectment suit filed by Lamberangs and an
action for the reconveyance of the
homestead filed by the Mendezes.
The three cases reached the Court of
Appeals
January 3, 1977
the Court of Appeals ordered the
reconveyance of the homestead to the
Mendezes "free of all liens and
encumbrances" upon their payment to
Lamberang of the redemption price.
Judgment having become final, and of
possession was issued placing Isabelo Bayog,
the representative of the Mendez family, in
possession of the homestead after ejecting
the tenants of the Lamberangs, the petitioner
herein who subsequently filed before the
Court of Agrarian Relations at Iligan City an
action for damages against the heirs of the
Mendez spouses, the now private
respondents.
The Agrarian court ordered their
reinstatement citing Section 10 of the
Code of Agrarian Reform giving tenants
security of tenure and Section 36 of the
same Code which provides that personal
cultivation by the landowner is no longer a
ground for terminating tenancy.
The Mendezes appealed to the Court of
Appeals which thereafter reversed the
agrarian court's decision and declared
them "entitled to the homestead without
the gravemen of plaintiff's tenancies.''
Petitioner-tenants appealed to the
Supreme Court contending that share
tenancy may be constituted in a
homestead after five years from the grant
of the patent and that they cannot be
ejected because they were not parties in
any of the cases involving the Mendezes
and Lamberang.
Issue:

whether the tenants hired by the purchaser of a

homestead planted to coconuts and bananas may be
ejected by the homesteader's heirs who were
allowed by the Court of Appeals to repurchase the
homestead and who desire to personally possess and
till the land.
Held
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed
judgment ruling that of the two competing
interests, the more paramount and superior
policy consideration is to uphold the right of the
homesteader and his heirs to own and cultivate
personally the land acquired from the State
without being encumbered by tenancy relations.
Judgment affirmed.
PUBLIC LAND LAW; HOMESTEAD ACT; RIGHT OF THE HOMESTEADER
AND HEIRS TO OWN AND CULTIVATE PERSONALLY THE LAND ACQUIRED
WITHOUT BEING ENCUMBERED BY TENANCY RELATIONS; CASE AT BAR.

Where two competing interests have to be weighed against each other:
the tenant's right to security of tenure as against the right of the
homesteader or his heirs to own a piece of land for their residence and
livelihood, the Court holds that the more paramount and superior policy
consideration is to uphold the right of the homesteader and his heirs to
own and cultivate personally the land acquired from the State without
being encumbered by tenancy relations. This holding is consistent with
the intention of the Code of Agrarian Reform to abolish agricultural share
tenancy, "to establish owner cultivator ship and the economic family-size
farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture" and "to achieve a dignified
existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional
restraints and practices'' (Sec. 2 of Homestead Act.)
Homestead Act

has been enacted for the welfare and protection

of the poor.
The Homestead Act at once aims at the
promotion of wholesome and happy citizenship
and the wiping out of the germs of social
discontent found everywhere.
"The conservation of a family home is the purpose of
homestead laws. The policy of the state is to foster
families as the factors of society and thus promote
general welfare. The sentiment of patriotism and
independence the spirit of free citizenship, the feeling
of interest in public affairs, are cultivated and fostered
more readily when the citizen lives permanently in his
own home, with a sense of its protection and
durability." (Jocson vs. Soriano, 45 Phil. 375, 379).