G.R. No. L-36378 January 27, 1992
PIO BALATBAT, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and DOMINGO PASION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pio Balatbat was the agricultural lessee of a land owned by Daniel Garcia. Private respondent Domingo Pasion purchased the land and subsequently filed a complaint for ejectment against Balatbat before the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) on the ground of personal cultivation under Section 36(1) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code). Pasion alleged he had notified Balatbat of his intention to personally cultivate the landholding. Balatbat denied receiving such notice and asserted that Pasion was physically unfit for farm work, owned another landholding, and filed the case in bad faith due to Balatbat’s refusal to revert to a 50-50 sharing arrangement. Balatbat also filed a counterclaim seeking to exercise his right of redemption over the land.
The CAR ruled in favor of Pasion, authorizing the ejectment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. During the pendency of the appeal before the Court of Appeals, R.A. No. 6389 took effect on September 10, 1971. Section 7 of this law amended Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844 by abolishing personal cultivation by a landowner as a ground for dispossessing a tenant. Balatbat thus filed this petition, arguing that the repealing law should be applied to his pending case, warranting its dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, which removed personal cultivation as a ground for ejectment, should be applied retroactively to a pending appealed case that originated from an action filed before its effectivity.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that R.A. No. 6389 does not apply retroactively to the case. The Court held that a substantive right had already vested in the landowner, Domingo Pasion, prior to the law’s enactment. The CAR had already rendered a valid and final judgment ordering the ejectment based on personal cultivation, a legitimate ground at the time the action was filed and decided. The Court emphasized that the new law could not impair such a vested right.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the policy of agrarian reform does not intend to deprive a landowner of the right to personally cultivate a small parcel of land. This principle is recognized under Presidential Decree No. 27, which allows retention by a landowner who cultivates or will cultivate an area of up to seven hectares. The evil sought to be remedied is the absentee landlord system, not personal cultivation by the owner. Since Pasion proved his bona fide intention and complied with the legal requirements for personal cultivation at the time, his vested right to eject the tenant for that purpose was not extinguished by the subsequent amendment. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.