17 Davao New Town v Sps Espino

17 DAVAO NEW TOWN v. SPS. SALIGA (2013)  J. Brion

Petitioner: Davao New Town Development Corporation Re!on"ent: Sps. Saliga and Sps. Ehara

#A$TS: On 5 Februar !""#$ respondents %led be&ore O'(e o& the )*+*D in Davao Cit a (omplaint &or in,un(tion$ (an(ellation o& titles and damages against the petitioner.

PETITIONER !. The petitioner petitioner alleged alleged in de&ense de&ense that it pur(hased pur(hased the propert in good &aith &aith &rom the previous owners -)a Flores and Eliabeth Nepomu(eno/ in !""5. 0. *t that time$ the alleged tenan( relationship relationship between the the respondent respondent and Eugenio had alread e1pired &ollowing the e1piration o& their lease (ontra(t in !"#2. 3. )rior to the sale$ sale$ the Davao Davao Cit O'(e o& the 4oning *dministrator *dministrator (on%rmed (on%rmed that the propert was not (lassi%ed as agri(ultural. The a'davit o& nontenan( e1e(uted b the vendors a'rmed the absen(e o& an re(ognied agri(ultural lessees on the propert. 6. The propert propert had alread alread been (lassi%ed to be within within an 7urban8urbani 7urban8urbaniing ing one9 in th !":"0;;; Comprehensive uman Settlement +egulator +egulator Commission -now the >ousing and een DNTD$ *n" te re!on"ent In a tenan( relationship$ the sub,e(t must be agri(ultural land. >ere$ it has alread been re(lassi%ed as nonagri(ultural. *((ordingl$ the respondents are not de jure tenants and are$ there&ore$ not entitled to the bene%ts granted to agri(ultural lessees under the provisions o& ).D. No. 0:$ in relation to +.*. No. 225:.

=nder Se(tion 32-!/ o& +.*. No. 3#66$ as amended b Se(tion : o& +.*. No. 23#"$ de(laration b the department head$ upon re(ommendation o& the National )lanning Commission$ to be suited &or residential$ (ommer(ial$ industrial or some other urban purposes$ terminates the right o& the agri(ultural lessee to (ontinue in its possession and en,oment. The approval o& the (onversion$ however$ is not limited to the authorit o& the D*+ or the (ourts. The re(lassi%(ation and (onversion o& agri(ultural lands to nonagri(ultural uses prior to the ee(tivit o& +.*. No. 225:$ on June !5$ !"##$ was a (oordinated eort o& several government agen(ies$ su(h as lo(al government units and the >S+C.

In ee(t$ there&ore$ whether the leasehold relationship between the respondents and Eugenio had been established b virtue o& the provisions o& +.*. No. 3#66 or o& the %veear lease (ontra(t e1e(uted in !"#!$ this leasehold relationship had been terminated with the re(lassi%(ation o& the propert as nonagri(ultural land in !"#0. The e1piration the %veear lease (ontra(t in !"#2 (ould not have done more than simpl %nall terminate an leasehold relationship that ma have prevailed under the terms o& that (ontra(t.

ConseAuentl$ when the DNTDC pur(hased the propert in !""5$ there was no longer an tenan( relationship that (ould have subrogated the DNTDC to the rights and obligations o& the previous owner.