G.R. No. L-47757-61 January 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ABUNDIO R. ELLO, petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE B. ECHAVES, JR., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Provincial Fiscal Abundio R. Ello filed separate informations against sixteen individuals, including respondents Ano Dacullo, Geronimo Oroyan, Mario Aparici, Ruperto Cajes, and Modesto Suello, charging them with squatting under Presidential Decree No. 772. The informations alleged that the accused, through “stealth and strategy,” entered, occupied, and cultivated portions of a grazing land in Talibon, Bohol, claimed by Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr., thereby depriving the pasture applicant of its full use. The cases were assigned to respondent Judge Vicente B. Echaves, Jr.
Before arraignment, Judge Echaves issued an omnibus order dismissing the five informations motu proprio. He held that the allegations of “stealth and strategy” did not conform to the modes of entry specified in P.D. No. 772, namely “force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner.” He further ruled, applying the rule of ejusdem generis, that the decree did not apply to the cultivation of grazing or agricultural lands. The fiscal amended the informations to use the statutory language and moved for reconsideration, but the lower court denied the motion, insisting the decree was inapplicable to agricultural settings.

ISSUE

Whether Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting, applies to agricultural or pasture lands.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that P.D. No. 772 does not apply to agricultural lands. The Court examined the decree’s preamble, which explicitly states the law was issued to address squatting as a “major problem in urban communities” and references Letter of Instruction No. 19, a directive aimed at removing illegal constructions on public and private properties in urban areas. The preamble’s context reveals the legislative intent to target illegal constructions by well-to-do individuals in urban squatter areas, not agricultural cultivation.
The Court clarified that squatting on public agricultural lands, such as the grazing land in this case, is governed by a different law, Republic Act No. 947 . This law specifically prohibits the forcible entry or occupation of public agricultural lands through “force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.” The trial court’s invocation of the ejusdem generis rule was deemed unnecessary, as the legislative intent of P.D. No. 772 was clear from its preamble and context; the rule is only a tool for construction when intent is uncertain. Therefore, the lower court correctly dismissed the informations for lack of legal basis.