CASE ANALYSIS Title: Mataas Na Lupa Tenants Assoc., Inc.

, Nicolas Aglipay and those mentioned in Annex A of complaint, petitioners, vs. arlos !imayuga and "uliana !ie# $da. !e %a&riel, respondents. %.'. No. L()*+,-, "une *., /-0, I(1A'TI23 Petitioners: Mataas Na Lupa Tenants Assoc. Inc., headed &y Nicholas Aglipay(4 tenants(lessees of the parcel of land 5hich is the su&6ect of litigation7 ivil case. 'espondents8 "uliana !ie# $da. de %a&riel(4lessor, the original o5ner of the parcel of land &eing leased to the petitioners. arlos !imayuga(4the &uyer7the person to 5hom the property 5as sold. II( 1'I9' 1'9 22!IN%3 1etitioners filed a complaint for the exercise of preferential rights 5ith the then ourt of :irst Instance of Manila, ;ranch I$ alleging that the ontract of 3ale executed &y "uliana !ie# $da. !e %a&riel 5ith arlos !imayuga is expressly prohi&ited &y la5 as it is mandated for the respondent to execute such sale to petitioners. Therefore said contract should &e declared null and void. The lo5er court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the dismissal of the case on the ground that petitioners failed to state a cause of action. Thus petitioners resorted to the petition of certiorari for the revie5 of the said order &efore the 3 . III( T<29'I23 9: T<2 1A'TI23 The petitioners claims that on May /,, /-=0, 5ithout giving notice to them or informing them of the transaction, "uliana !ie# $da. de %a&riel sold the parcel of land to respondent arlos !imayuga. They invo>e their right vested &y '.A. //=*, as amended &y '.A. *),* and )./=, tenants have a preferential right to &uy the lands they are renting 5ithin Metro Manila, provided there are at least ,+ tenants, regardless of non expropria&ility or si#e of the land in ?uestion. The aforesaid provision further re?uires the respondent to offer the sale of the land to petitioner unless the latter renounces their rights in a pu&lic instrument. Ma>ing the sale executed &y respondents illegal. 'espondent $da. de %a&riel claimed the land su&6ect of the complaint is not a landed estate, and not &eing such, the same cannot &e expropriated , and not &eing expropria&le, no preferential rights could &e availed of &y the tenants. @hile respondent !imayuga claims that plaintiffs had no personality to initiate the action since the Land Tenure Administration possessed the po5er to institute the proper expropriation proceedings &efore the competent court and that the su&6ect complaint stated no cause of action against respondents. I$( 9;"2 TI$2 The petitioner prays that the contract of sale &e declared null and void and that respondent $da. de %a&riel to execute a deed of sale in favor of petitioners at the same price and conditions follo5ed in the contract 5ith respondent !imayuga, plus attorneyAs fees and damages. 'espondent prays for the dismissal of the complaint, that the plaintiffs &e e6ected from the property and for other remedies. $( B2C :A T3 :or more than ten years prior to /-.-, the petitioners have &een occupants of a parcel of land D5ith their //+ houses &uilt thereon(//+ tenant familiesE formerly o5ned &y $da. de %a&riel to 5hom petitioners have &een paying their rents for the lease thereof, &ut 5ho, on May /,, /-=0, 5ithout notice to petitioners, sold the same to respondent !imayuga, 5ho in turn mortgaged the same to her for the &alance of the purchase price. 9n the discovery of the sale the petitioner filed a complaint for the exercise of their preferential rights &efore the :I. And that pursuant to '.A. //=*, as amended &y '.A. *),* a parcel of land in Manila and su&ur&s , 5ith at least .+ houses of tenants erected thereon and actually leased to said

tenants for at least /+ years prior to "une *+ , /-.-, may not &e sold &y the land o5ner to any person other than such tenants, unless the latter renounced their rights in a pu&lic instrument. @hich means, respondent $da. de %a&riel sold the land to respondent !imayuga 5ithout the said tenants(appellants having renounced their preferential rights in a pu&lic instrument. Their complaint also states that since the aforesaid contract of sale is expressly prohi&ited &y la5, the same &e declared null and void and for $da. !e %a&riel to execute a deed of sale in their favor &ecause they are li>e5ise 5illing to purchase said land at the same price and on the same terms and conditions o&served in the contract of sale 5ith respondent !imayuga. 9n "anuary )/, /-=-, respondent $da. !e %a&riel filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint is not a land estate and not &eing such, the same cannot &e expropriated and that no preferential rights can &e availed of &y the tenants. 9n fe&ruary =, /-=-, !imayuga filed his ans5er admitting therein certain factual allegations, denied some averments, interposed the affirmative defense that plaintiffs had no personality to initiate the action, that the su&6ect complaint stated no cause of action against respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and other remedies. 1laintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss, maintaining that '.A. //=*, as amended &y '.A. *),* does not refer to landed estates, &ut to any piece of land occupied &y more than .+ families leasing the same for more than /+ years prior to "une *+, /-.-F that their preferential right is independent of the expropria&ility of the landF that therefore, said rights may &e exercised even if land is not expropria&le pursuant to the police po5er of the 3tate for the general 5elfare. 9n 9cto&er )+, /-=-, the :I issued the su&6ect order 5hich found respondentAs motion to dismiss 5ell(ta>en and there&y dismisses complaint. After a series of motions, reply, re6oinder, surre6oinder, and ans5er &et5een &oth parties, the lo5er court issued itAs order of May //, /-G+ dismissing petitioners appeal. 1etitioner thus resorted to this petition. $I( I33H23 @hether or not the contract of sale is null and void. @hether or not the petitioners may invo>e their preferential rights as tenants. $II( <9L!IN%3 The ourt finds that the said sale 5as made illegally and therefore void. The court also finds that petitionersA case falls 5ith in the la5 thus they may invo>e their $III( 'atiodecidendi The '.A. //=* as amended &y '.A. *),* and )./= set forth the follo5ing conditions(that of offering first the sale of the land to petitioners and the latterAs renunciation in a pu&lic instrument(5ere not met 5hen the land 5as sold to respondent !imayuga. 2vidently, said sale is illegal and therefore void. The /-G) onstitution section =, article II emphasi#es the ste5ardship concept that such private property is supposed to &e held &y the individual only as trustee for the people in general, 5ho are its real o5ners. As a mere ste5ard, the individual must exercise his right to the property not for his o5n exclusive and selfish &enefit &ut for the good of the entire community. 1.!. //.G 1roclaiming Hr&an Land 'eform in the 1hilippines and 1roviding for the Implenting Machinery thereof. superseded '.A. //.*, *),*,)./=. This decree is firmly &ased on sec. = of art. II of the /-G) constitution undou&tedly adopts and crystalli#es the greater num&er of people criterion 5hen it spea>s of tenants and residents in declared ur&an land reform #ones or areas 5ithout mention of the land area covered &y such #ones. The focus therefore, is on people 5ho 5ould &enefit and not on the si#e of the land involved. Hnder section = of 5hich also states that tenant(families have &een vested the right of first refusal to purchase of the land 5ithin a reasona&le time and reasona&le price su&6ect to the rules and regulations of the Ministry of <uman 3ettlements. It is further supported &y 1! /-=G 5hich evidently include Mataas na Lupa, the land in controversy 5ith in the Hr&an Land 'eform Ione. IJ( !I3193ITI9N The order issued &y the :I is here&y set aside and the Ministry of <uman 3ettlements is here&y directed to facilitate and administer the implementation of the rights of the petitioner. ost against respondents. preferential right.