Nilo vs CA

Nilo vs CA Facts: These petitions are jointly heard to question the effectivity of of RA 6839 , which amen ded Sec 36 (1) of RA 3844 allowing a landowner to eject an agricultural lessee or tenant on the ground that the owner shall personally cultivate the land himself. 





GR No L-34586: Respondent Almario Alm ario Gatchalian is the owner of a parc el of ric eland at Barrio Bar rio San Roque, San San Rafael, Bulacan with an area of two (2) hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-76791 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. Petitioner Hospicio Nilo has been the agricultural share-tenant of Gatchalian since agricultural year 1964-65. On March 7, 1968, Gatchalian flied an ejectment suit against petitioner on the ground of personal cultivation under Sec. 36 (1) of Republic Act No. 3844. Nilo alleged by way of affirmative defense that the ejectment suit was but an act of reprisal and retaliation because he elected the leasehold system, The RTC and CA ruled in favor of private respondents. Upon MOR to the CA, the petitioner petitioner "personal "perso nal cultivation as a ground for ejectment o f an an agricultural agricul tural less ee has been eliminated under Republic Act No. 6389. The CA denied the motion resolving that Republic Act No. 6389 has no retroactive application.

GR No. No. L-366 25: This is an appeal raised by petitioner Fortunato Castro to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations d ismissing his complaint for the ejectment of his tenant, respondent Juan Castro, on the ground of personal cultivation. The landowner wan ts to personally cultivate the land owned by him located in Pulilan, Bulacan with an area of 6,941 square meters. Petitioner Fortunato Castro questioned the constitutionality of Section 7 of Repub lic Act No. 6 389 which amended Section 36(l) of Republic Act No. 384 4. After After the enactment of Repub lic Act Act No. 63 89 on September 10 , 1971, the respondent moved for the dismissal of petitioner's complaint on the ground that the new law eliminated personal cu ltivation by the landowmer as a ground for the ejectment of an agricultural tenant. The Court of Agrarian Rel n dismissed the complaint. ’

Issue: W/N the amendme nt in R.A. R.A. 6389 should be given retroactive eff ect to cover cases th at were filed dur ing the effectivity of the repealed provision. Ruling: NO Article Article 3 of the old Civil Code (now Article Article 4 of the New Civil Code) provides that: "Laws shall not have a retroactive effect unless therein otherwise provided." According to this provision of law, in order tha t a law may have retroactive effect it is necessary that an express provision to this effect be made in the law, otherwise n othing should be unde rstood which is not embodied in the law. The general rule therefore, is that statutes have no retroactive effect unless otherwise provided therein (Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 172). The petitioner-tenan t in G.R. G.R. No. L-345 86 contends that since Republic Act No. 638 9 is a social legislation and passe d under the police police power of of the State, it should be liberally interpreted in favor favor of the tenants We agree with the petitioner-tenant that the law in question is social legislation. But social justice is n ot for tena nts alone. The disputed land in L-36625 is only 6,941 square meters. The area of the land in L-34586 is slightly bigger, about two (2) he ctares. A person with only one or two h ectares of land to his name is equ ally deserving of social social justice. Precisely, the legislators, in p roviding "persona l cultivation" cultivation" as a ground to eject tenants intended to encourage and attract the landowners to go to their respective provinces and till their own own lands. Unfortu nately, the ground of "persona l cultivatio cultivation" n" was abused and u sed as a pretext to eject the tenant and this led to the amendatory law. This unf ortunate consequen ce should not work work an injustice upon those small landowners proven to have the bona  fide intention to personally cultivate their lands. 









