Case Digest: Alcantara vs. Reta G.R. No. 136996 I December 14, 2001

FACTS:

Petitioners claimed that they were tenants or lessees of the land located in Barangay Sasa, Davao City owned by Reta; that the land has been converted by Reta into a commercial center; and that Reta is threatening to eject them from the land. They assert that they have the right of first refusal to purchase the land in accordance with Section 3(g) of Presidential Decree No. 1517 since they are legitimate tenants or lessees thereof.

On the other hand, Reta claimed that the land is beyond the ambit of Presidential Decree No. 1517 since it has not been proclaimed as an Urban Land Reform Zone; that the applicable law is Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 for failure of the plaintiffs to pay the rentals for the use of the land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners have the right of first refusal under Presidential Decree No. 1517.

DECISION:

The petition is without merit. The area involved has not been proclaimed an Urban Land Reform Zone (ULRZ). Presidential Decree No. 1517, otherwise known as The Urban Land Reform Act, pertains to areas proclaimed as Urban Land Reform Zones. Consequently, petitioners cannot claim any right under the said law since the land involved is not an ULRZ. To be able to qualify and avail oneself of the rights and privileges granted by the said decree, one must be: (1) a legitimate tenant of the land for ten (10) years or more; (2) must have built his home on the land by contract; and, (3) has resided continuously for the last ten (10) years. Obviously, those who do not fall within the said category cannot be considered legitimate tenants and, therefore, not entitled to the right of first refusal to purchase the property should the owner of the land decide to sell the same at a reasonable price within a reasonable time.

Respondent Reta allowed petitioner Ricardo Roble to use sixty-two (62) coconut trees for P186 from where he gathered tuba. This arrangement would show that it is a usufruct and not a lease. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. Petitioner Roble was allowed to construct his house on the land because it would facilitate his gathering of tuba. This would be in the nature of a personal easement under Article 614 of the Civil Code. Whether the amicable settlement is valid or not, the conclusion would still be the same since the agreement was one of usufruct and not of lease. Thus, petitioner Roble is not a legitimate tenant as defined by Presidential Decree No. 1517.