The Supreme Court has denied the petition of Federico "Boy" L. Ocampo and upheld his ejectment from a parcel of farmland in Pampanga, ruling that his conversion of the land from palay production into an orchard and fishpond, without the landowners' consent, was a valid ground for dispossession under agrarian law.
In a decision in G.R. No. 276918, the Court affirmed the April 29, 2024 Decision and September 30, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the May 12, 2022 Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
The Case
On July 10, 2018, a complaint for ejectment and delivery of possession was filed by Angel V. Magcalas, Lolita B. Emralino, Aurora V. Mariano, Ruben Valencia, Norie Valencia, Eddie Valencia, Ofelia Alviz, Purisima V. Lagman, and Nemesio O. Valencia, Jr., represented by their Attorney-in-Fact Angelito M. Mariano (collectively, Magcalas et al.), against Federico "Boy" L. Ocampo.
The complaint involved a parcel of land under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 611880-R, owned by Magcalas et al. and devoted to producing palay. It is located in Brgy. San Basilio, Sta. Rita, Pampanga, with an area of 43,534 square meters.
The land's original tenant was Alfonso D. Ocampo. Upon Alfonso's death, Magcalas et al. alleged that Ocampo possessed and cultivated the land without their consent, and claimed his possession was illegal because he was a civil servant, did not personally cultivate the land, converted it into an orchard and fish pond without their consent, is not an actual resident, constructed a concrete house and other structures, and failed to pay full rentals of 60 cavans of rice annually.
In his Answer, Ocampo contended that he is Alfonso's eldest son and legally succeeded the tenancy rights upon his father's death. He averred that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 made the land unproductive for palay, and that being a government employee should not disqualify him as an agricultural lessee.
An ocular inspection reported that the property was mostly planted with fruit-bearing trees and high-value crops, with a 300-square-meter fishpond and only three portions, totaling 3,800 square meters, devoted to palay production. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) dismissed the complaint, but the DARAB reversed and ordered Ocampo to vacate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB.
The Issue
The question before the Court was whether Ocampo's conversion of the land to purposes other than palay production justified his dispossession, and whether his claim of force majeure arising from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption excused him.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that Ocampo failed to prove all requisites to invoke force majeure, and that his dispossession under Sections 36(2) and 36(3) of Republic Act No. 3844 due to illegal conversion was valid. The Court held that his conversion of the land for purposes other than the production of palay, as agreed upon by the landowner and original tenant, was a valid and sufficient ground for his dispossession.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The April 29, 2024 Decision and September 30, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 175870, affirming the May 12, 2022 Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, are AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 276918
- Land area: 43,534 square meters, under TCT No. 611880-R
- Complaint filed: July 10, 2018
- PARAD Decision: August 20, 2019
- DARAB Decision: May 12, 2022
- Court of Appeals Decision: April 29, 2024; Resolution: September 30, 2024
- Palay production area found: 3,800 square meters, more or less
- Fishpond: 300 square meters
- Stipulated rental: 60 cavans of rice annually
The Court's Reasoning
The Court said a mere allegation is not evidence, and that Ocampo failed to substantiate his self-serving claims. He presented no factual, legal, or scientific basis for his assertion that planting fruit-bearing trees increases agricultural productivity or helps rehabilitate the land. He did not request an inspection from the DAR nor present any competent certification on the property's productivity after the eruption.
The Court noted that Ocampo is neither an authority nor an expert in agriculture, submitted no credentials demonstrating farming expertise, and admitted he was not engaged in full-time farming while a full-time government employee.
The ocular inspection, conducted by Sheriff Elizabeth Marasigan and Agrarian Reform Program Officer (ARPO) II Criselda S. Mangalino, reported with supporting photographs that the property is mostly an orchard, with very little devoted to palay production. These officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, which requires clear and convincing evidence to overthrow. Ocampo's unsubstantiated claims did not amount to such evidence.
While recognizing that agrarian reform laws favor tenants and farmworkers, the Court emphasized that this zeal must be tempered to curtail wrongdoing, citing Castillo v. Tolentino that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. It held that Ocampo cannot be allowed to blatantly violate his tenancy agreement and seek exemption from dispossession simply on the ground of agrarian reform and social justice.
Source: Supreme Court decision in G.R. No. 276918.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.