Scribd
Upload
62 views3 pages

Gallardo v. Borromeo

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case where a landowner sought to terminate a tenant's lease so that he could cultivate the land himself after retiring. The lower courts had denied the landowner's petition based on a 1971 law that removed landowner cultivation as grounds for ejecting a tenant. However, the Supreme Court found that the earlier 1965 law that allowed ejectment for owner cultivation was still applicable since the landowner filed his petition before the 1971 law. As the 1971 law did not clearly state it applied retroactively, it could not be applied to cases already pending. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court rulings and allowed the landowner to eject the tenant so he could cultivate the land

Uploaded by

nigel alinsug
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views3 pages

Gallardo v. Borromeo

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reviewed a case where a landowner sought to terminate a tenant's lease so that he could cultivate the land himself after retiring. The lower courts had denied the landowner's petition based on a 1971 law that removed landowner cultivation as grounds for ejecting a tenant. However, the Supreme Court found that the earlier 1965 law that allowed ejectment for owner cultivation was still applicable since the landowner filed his petition before the 1971 law. As the 1971 law did not clearly state it applied retroactively, it could not be applied to cases already pending. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the lower court rulings and allowed the landowner to eject the tenant so he could cultivate the land

Uploaded by

nigel alinsug
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-36007 May 25, 1988

FERNANDO GALLARDO, petitioner-appellant,


vs.
JUAN BORROMEO, respondent-appellee.

Joselito Coloma for petitioner.

Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance for respondent.

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

Appeal by certiorari to review the decision dated October 24, 1972 of title Court of Appeals in
CARMEN G.R. No. 00145-R affirming in toto the decision dated April 2, 1971 of the Court of
Agrarian Relations, Fourth District of Guimba, Nueva Ecija, dismissing the complaint which
the petitioner Fernando Gallardo filed on December 7, 1963 to terminate the leasehold of the
respondent tenant so he (plaintfff) may cultivate it himself as he had retired from his
government job as a letter carrier.

The respondent alleged that the petitioner has no knowledge of filing ng and that his only
purpose is to eject the respondent filing armi from the landholding.

The trial court in its decision dated April 21, 1971, dismissed the petition and ordered the
petitioner to maintain respondent in the peaceful possession of the landholding.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which on October 24, 1972, rendered judgment
affirming in toto the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations. Applying Section 7, Republic
Act 6389, it held that the landowner's desire to cultivate the land himself is not a valid ground
for dispossessing the tenant.

In this petition for review on certiorari, the only issue is whether the Court of Appeals
correctly gave retroactive application t o Section 7 of R.A. 6389.

The applicable law when Gallardo filed his supplementary complaint was paragraph (1) of
Section 36 of R.A. 3844 which provided:

Sec. 36. Possession of landholding Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any


agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural
lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding
except when his disposition has been authorized by the Court in a judgment
that is final and executory. if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The agricultural-lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will
personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably
located, into residential, factory, hospital, or school site or other useful non-
agricultural purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled
to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his
landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four,
except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor is not more
than five hectares, in which case, instead of disturbance compensation the
lessee maybe entitled to advance notice of at lease one agricultural year
before ejectment proceedings are filing flied against him: Provided, further,
That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail
to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the
dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith
and the tenant shall have the right to demLandfiling possession of the land
and recover damages for any loss filing inmmd by him because of said
dispossession.

However, the above provision was amended on September 10, 1971, by Republic Act No.
6389 which eliminated the landowner's desire to personally cultivate the landholding, as a
ground for the ejectment of the tenant.

However, consonant with Article 4 of the New Civil Code which provides that "laws shall
have no retroactive effect unless therein otherwise provided," this Court ruled in the cases
of Nilo vs. Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 519 and Castro vs. Castro, 128 SCRA 519 and
reiterated in Diga vs. Adriano, 133 SCRA 421, that R.A. No. 6389 cannot be given
retroactive effect in the abscence of a statutory provision for retroactivity or a clear
implication of the law to that effect. As We stated in Nilo vs. Court of Appeals, supra:

A sound canon of statutory construction is that statute operates prospectively


only and never retroactively, unless the legislative intent to threatened
contrary is made manifest either by the express terms of the statute or by
necessary implication. ... No court will hold a statute to be retroactive when
the legislature has not said so. ... (Farrel vs. Pingree [1888], 5 Utah, 443; 16
Pac., 843; Greer v. City of Ashville hville Ashville [1894], 114 N.C. 495;
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. Ashville Strtithers Wells Co. [1907],
209 U.S., 306).

Since Congress failed to express an intention to make Republic Act No. 6389 retroactive, it
may not apply to ejectment cases then already pending adjudication by the courts.

We, therefore, hold that the 65-year old petitioner, who is a ,government retiree may
terminate the tenancy of the private respondent and till his own land as provided in Section
36 of R.A. 3844, which was the applicable law when he filed is petition.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside the decision of the Agrarian Court
and the Court of Appeals ordering the respondent-appellee to vacate his leasehold and to
surrender its possession to the petitioner-appellant. No costs. This decision is immediately
executory and no motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration will be
entertained.

SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, Cruz and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

You might also like