G.R. No. 241353 , January 22, 2020
DANILO ROMERO, VICTORIO ROMERO AND EL ROMERO, REPRESENTING THEIR DECEASED FATHER LUTERO ROMERO, PETITIONERS, VS. CRISPINA SOMBRINO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves a two-hectare portion of Lot No. 23, Pls-35, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-2261 registered in the name of Lutero Romero (Lutero) after his homestead application was approved in 1967. Prior to this controversy, the Supreme Court, in Teodora Saltiga de Romero, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. ( G.R. No. 109307 ), held with finality that Lutero is the true and lawful landowner, having exclusively acquired the property via homestead patent. The Court found that the family patriarch, Eugenio Romero, never owned the land as his own homestead application was denied, and that any subsequent sale by Lutero was void for violating the prohibition against alienation within five years from patent issuance. After this decision became final, Lutero’s heirs (petitioners) obtained a Writ of Execution from the RTC. Its implementation was delayed when Crispina Sombrino (respondent) intervened, claiming to be a tenant. The RTC allowed intervention but eventually ordered execution, and a Writ of Demolition was issued, ousting respondent from the land on April 5, 2005. Respondent then filed a Complaint for Illegal Ejectment and Recovery of Possession before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD), alleging she and her late husband were installed as tenants in 1952 by spouses Eugenio and Teodora Romero, and later recognized by their successor, Lucita Romero Pacas. The PARAD ruled in favor of respondent, declaring her a de jure tenant and ordering her reinstatement. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and the Court of Appeals affirmed the PARAD decision, holding that the agricultural leasehold relation instituted by the original landowners (Spouses Romero) was preserved under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3844 despite the transfer of ownership to Lutero’s heirs.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Crispina Sombrino is a de jure tenant entitled to security of tenure over the subject property owned by petitioners, the heirs of Lutero Romero.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution, and set aside the rulings of the DARAB and PARAD. The Court held that respondent is not a de jure tenant entitled to security of tenure. Security of tenure may only be invoked by tenants de jure, and a tenancy relation can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder. The Court found that the essential element of consent by the landholder was absent. The Spouses Eugenio and Teodora Romero, who allegedly installed respondent as tenant, were never the lawful owners or possessors of the land. The final and executory ruling in De Romero v. CA established that Lutero was the exclusive owner by virtue of his homestead patent, and his father Eugenio was disqualified from owning it. Since the Spouses Romero had no valid right to the landholdings, they could not have validly instituted a tenancy relationship over it. Respondent’s tenancy, if any, was established only through the acts of persons with no right to the land. Consequently, petitioners, as the true owners, cannot be compelled to recognize or respect a tenancy relationship to which they never consented and which was created by individuals without authority. The agricultural leasehold relation under RA 3844 presupposes a valid tenancy created by the lawful landholder; it cannot be invoked to bind a subsequent owner to a tenancy established by one who was never the legitimate owner.