This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-12-09 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Thus, when PDB became the absolute owner of the subject land, it was subrogated to the rights and obligations of its predecessors, Jose Cruz, Braulia Ortiz Cruz and Lorenzo Bautista as agricultural lessors. The tenancy relationship was not affected by the transfer of the ownership of the landholding.[26] The new owner was bound to respect and maintain the tenant's landholding because the tenancy right attached to the land regardless of who its owner may be.[27] The purpose of the law is to strengthen the security of tenure of the tenants:...in case of transfer or in case of lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship between the landowner and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the tenant or protect him from being unjustly dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the land; in other words, the purpose of the law in question is to maintain the tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land or afford them protection against unjustified dismissal from their holdings.[28] We therefore conclude that it was error for the CA to declare the sale and transfer of the subject property to the bank as null and void ab initio. The transfer to PDB was valid but subject to the rights of Garcia as tenant. As we ruled in the recent case of Milestone Realty and Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals: [29] ...(W)e are unable to agree with the ruling of respondent Court of Appeals and of DARAB that the sale of the land in question should be declared null and void. There is no legal basis for such declaration. Lest it be forgotten, it is Carolina Zacarias who is the owner of the subject land and both Emilio Peña and Delia Razon Peña only succeeded to the tenancy rights of Anacleto. | |||||