What the PARAD, DARAB and CA failed to consider and realize is that Amanda’s declaration in her Affidavit covering Pedro’s alleged admission and recognition of the alternate farming scheme is inadmissible for being a violation of the Dead Man’s Statute,[29] which provides that “[i]f one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the other party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.”[30] Thus, since Pedro is deceased, and Amanda’s declaration which pertains to the leasehold agreement affects the 1996 “Kasunduan sa Buwisan ng Lupa” which she as assignor entered into with petitioners, and which is now the subject matter of the present case and claim against Pedro’s surviving spouse and lawful successor-in-interest Dominga, such declaration cannot be admitted and used against the latter, who is placed in an unfair situation by reason of her being unable to contradict or disprove such declaration as a result of her husband-declarant Pedro’s prior death.
If petitioners earnestly believed that they had a right, under their supposed mutual agreement with Pedro, to cultivate the land under an alternate farming scheme, then they should have confronted Pedro or sought an audience with Amanda to discuss the possibility of their institution as co-lessees of the land; and they should have done so soon after the passing away of their father Eugenio. However, it was only in 1996, or 17 years after Pedro was installed as tenant in 1979 and long after his death in 1984, that they came forward to question Pedro’s succession to the leasehold. As correctly held by the PARAD, petitioners slept on their rights, and are thus precluded from questioning Pedro’s 1979 agricultural leasehold contract.
Amanda, on the other hand, cannot claim that Pedro deceived her into believing that he is the sole successor to the leasehold. Part of her duties as the landowner’s representative or administrator was to know the personal circumstances of the lessee Eugenio; more especially so, when Eugenio died. She was duty-bound to make an inquiry as to who survived Eugenio, in order that the landowner – or she as representative – could choose from among them who would succeed to the leasehold. Under Section 9 of RA 3844, Makapugay, or Amanda – as Makapugay’s duly appointed representative or administrator – was required to make a choice, within one month from Eugenio’s death, who would succeed as agricultural lessee. Thus:
Amanda may not claim ignorance of the above provision, as ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.[31] Thus, when she executed the 1979 Agricultural Leasehold Contract with Pedro, she is deemed to have chosen the latter as Eugenio’s successor, and is presumed to have diligently performed her duties, as Makapugay’s representative, in conducting an inquiry prior to making the choice.
The same holds true for petitioners. They should be held to a faithful compliance with Section 9. If it is true that they entered into a unique arrangement with Pedro to alternately till the land, they were thus obliged to inform Makapugay or Amanda of their arrangement, so that in the process of choosing Eugenio’s successor, they would not be left out. But evidently, they did not; they slept on their rights, and true enough, they were excluded, if there was any such alternate farming agreement between them. And after Pedro was chosen and installed as Eugenio’s successor, they allowed 17 years to pass before coming out to reveal this claimed alternate farming agreement and insist on the same.
If petitioners earnestly believed that they had a right, under their supposed mutual agreement with Pedro, to cultivate the land under an alternate farming scheme, then they should have confronted Pedro or sought an audience with Amanda to discuss the possibility of their institution as co-lessees of the land; and they should have done so soon after the passing away of their father Eugenio. However, it was only in 1996, or 17 years after Pedro was installed as tenant in 1979 and long after his death in 1984, that they came forward to question Pedro’s succession to the leasehold. As correctly held by the PARAD, petitioners slept on their rights, and are thus precluded from questioning Pedro’s 1979 agricultural leasehold contract.
Amanda, on the other hand, cannot claim that Pedro deceived her into believing that he is the sole successor to the leasehold. Part of her duties as the landowner’s representative or administrator was to know the personal circumstances of the lessee Eugenio; more especially so, when Eugenio died. She was duty-bound to make an inquiry as to who survived Eugenio, in order that the landowner – or she as representative – could choose from among them who would succeed to the leasehold. Under Section 9 of RA 3844, Makapugay, or Amanda – as Makapugay’s duly appointed representative or administrator – was required to make a choice, within one month from Eugenio’s death, who would succeed as agricultural lessee. Thus:
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. (Emphasis supplied)
Amanda may not claim ignorance of the above provision, as ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.[31] Thus, when she executed the 1979 Agricultural Leasehold Contract with Pedro, she is deemed to have chosen the latter as Eugenio’s successor, and is presumed to have diligently performed her duties, as Makapugay’s representative, in conducting an inquiry prior to making the choice.
The same holds true for petitioners. They should be held to a faithful compliance with Section 9. If it is true that they entered into a unique arrangement with Pedro to alternately till the land, they were thus obliged to inform Makapugay or Amanda of their arrangement, so that in the process of choosing Eugenio’s successor, they would not be left out. But evidently, they did not; they slept on their rights, and true enough, they were excluded, if there was any such alternate farming agreement between them. And after Pedro was chosen and installed as Eugenio’s successor, they allowed 17 years to pass before coming out to reveal this claimed alternate farming agreement and insist on the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment