G.R. No. 78517. February 27, 1989.
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M. REYES, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents are co-owners of two parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur, acquired by their predecessors-in-interest through a homestead patent under Commonwealth Act No. 141. Desiring to personally cultivate these homestead lands, the private respondents sought to eject the petitioners, who were occupying the land as tenants. The petitioners refused to vacate, invoking the land reform program under Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27) and its related issuances, which aimed to emancipate tenants and transfer land ownership to them.
The private respondents filed a complaint to declare P.D. 27 inapplicable to homestead lands. The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the complaint but, upon reconsideration, reversed itself. It ruled that P.D. 27 did not apply to homestead lands and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenants. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, prompting the tenants to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether lands acquired through a homestead patent are covered by the agrarian reform program under P.D. 27, thereby precluding the homestead grantees or their heirs from ejecting tenant-cultivators to personally cultivate the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that homestead lands are not covered by P.D. 27 and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on the superiority and specific purpose of homestead rights under the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141). The Court emphasized that the Homestead Act is a social legislation designed to provide landless citizens with a piece of land for their home and subsistence, a right deemed as vital as the right to life itself.
While acknowledging P.D. 27 as a sweeping social justice measure, the Court held that its general provisions cannot defeat the very specific and protective purpose of the homestead law. This interpretation finds support in constitutional and statutory provisions. Section 6, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that agrarian reform principles be applied subject to “prior rights” and “homestead rights of small settlers.” Furthermore, the newly enacted Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (Republic Act No. 6657) explicitly provides that original homestead grantees or their direct heirs shall retain the homestead as long as they cultivate it. Therefore, the right of the homestead grantees’ heirs to personally cultivate their land prevails over the tenancy rights asserted under the general agrarian reform program.