7/25/2019 Alcantara vs Reta Prosperity vs CA
1/3
Alcantara v. Reta, Jr.G.R. No. 136996, December 14, 2001
Pardo, J.
FAC!"
Alcantara and the other petitioners claim that they were tenants
or lessees ofthe land owned by Reta. The land has been converted
into a commercial center andReta is threatening to eject them. They
claim that since they are legitimate tenantsor lessees of such
land, they have the right of rst refusal to purchase the land
inaccordance with Section 3g! of "residential #ecree $o. %&%',
the (rban )andReform Act. They also claimed that the amicable
settlement e*ecuted betweenReta and Ricardo Roble, one of the
petitioners, was void ab initiofor being violativeof "# $o.
%&%'. +n the other hand, Reta claimed that the land is uestion
is notwithin the scope of "# $o. %&%' since it was not
proclaimed as an (rban )andReform -one ()R-!. Alcantara, among
others, then led complaint for the e*ercise
of the right of rst refusal under "# $o. %&%' in the
Regional Trial ourt. /owever,such complaint was dismissed and such
dismissal was a0rmed by the ourt ofAppeals. /ence, this petition
was led.
#!!$%"
1hether the Alcantara and the other petitioners have the right
of rst refusal.
&%'D"
$o. The land involved has not been proclaimed an (rban )and
Reform -one()R-!. 2n fact, petitioners led a petition with the
$ational /ousing Authorityreuesting that said land be declared as
an ()R-. learly, the reuest to have theland proclaimed as an ()R-
would not be necessary if the property was an ()R-."# $o. %&%'
pertains to areas proclaimed as ()R-. onseuently, petitionerscannot
claim any right under the said law since the land involved is not
an ()R-.
To be able to ualify and avail of the rights and privileges
granted by the saiddecree, one must be %! a legitimate tenant of
the land for ten %4! years or more56! must have built his home on
the land by contract5 and, 3! has residedcontinuously for the last
ten %4! years. Those who do not fall within the saidcategory cannot
be considered 7legitimate tenants7 and, therefore, not entitled
tothe right of rst refusal to purchase the property should the
owner of the landdecide to sell the same at a reasonable price
within a reasonable time.
Reta denies that he has lease agreements with Alcantara and
Roble.Alcantara, on the other hand, failed to present evidence of a
lease agreement otherthan his testimony in court. Reta allowed
Roble to use si*ty8two 96! coconut treesfor "%:9 from where he
gathered tuba. This arrangement would show that it is ausufruct and
not a lease. Roble was also allowed to construct his house on the
landbecause it would facilitate his gathering of tuba. This would
be in the nature of apersonal easement under Article 9%; of the
ivil ode. 1hether the amicablesettlement is valid or not, the
conclusion would still be the same since the
7/25/2019 Alcantara vs Reta Prosperity vs CA
3/3
FAC!"
=etropolitan ind ofpassage in favor of "R+S"@R2T ind of passage.
The trial courtread this phrase to mean that petitioner had the
right to ma>e e*cavations on theside of the access road in order
to install a networ> of water pipes. The wordpassage does not,
however, clearly and unmista>ably convey a meaning thatincludes
a right to install water pipes on the access road. The ordinary
meaning ofthe word, as dened in 1ebsters #ictionary, is that it is
the act or action of passingmovement or transference from one place
or point to another. 2ts legal meaning isnot diBerent. 2t means,
according to Clac>s )aw #ictionary, the act of passing5transit5
transition. To achieve a meaning such as that which petitioner
proposesreuires the consideration of evidence showing the parties
intention in using the
word which can only be done during trial on the merits. (ntil
such time, petitionercannot claim to have a clear and
unmista>able right justifying the issuance of a writof
preliminary mandatory injunction in this case. Thus, the trial
court should haveobserved caution and denied petitioners
application for the preliminary writ.
