This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-09-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, it bears emphasizing that no one has denied the existence of the tenancy status of deceased Vicente C. Barreto over the subject thirty-six-hectare landholding with respect to its former owner, Antonio Bartolome. There being no waiver executed by deceased tenant Barreto, no less than the law clarifies that the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship is not terminated by mere changes of ownership, in cases of sale or transfer of legal possession as in lease.[24] Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 3844 provides that:SEC. 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished ... by the sale, ... of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, ... the purchaser ... shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. | |||||
|
2003-04-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Attention may be invited to settled jurisprudence that the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship is not terminated by changes of ownership in case of sale, or transfer of legal possession as in lease.[30] This, again, assumes that tenancy already exists. In the case at bar, no such relationship was ever created between the civil law lessees and private respondents, and subsequently, between Valencia and private respondents except Catalino Mantac. With respect to the lease agreement between Valencia and Fr. Flores, the lessee did not have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to the prohibition in their lease agreement. It is likewise in clear and unambiguous terms that the lease agreement was only for a limited duration with no extension.[31] | |||||
|
2002-05-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| To strengthen the security of tenure of tenants, Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that the agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. With unyielding consistency, we have held that transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership, such as the sale or transfer of legal possession, will not terminate the rights of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the landowner's successor in interest.[10] Consequently, the sale of the subject landholding to petitioners Jaugans did not adversely affect the security of tenure of the private respondents as tenants of the subject lot. | |||||