Rosalinda Bonifacio et. al., v.

Judge Dizon
G.R. No, 79416
FERNAN, C.J.:
FACTS:
Olimpio Bonifacio as the owner of a land which the private respondent, Pastora San
Miguel, was an agricultural lessee. On July 1, 1968, Olimpio filed a complaint seeking
the ejectment of private respondent from Bonifacios 2-hectare agricultural land. The
CAR granted the ejectment of Pastora San Miguel. On appeal by the private respondent,
the CA modified the judgement with respect to her counterclaim by ordering Olimpio to
pay her in P1,376.00. Still dissatisfied, private respondent sought relief to SC. During the
pendency of the case, Olimpio died andwas succeeded by his heirs. However, no notice
of such death was given to the Court, hence no order of substitution of his heirs was
made. SC resolved to deny the petition of the private respondent for lack of merit, SC
affirmed the decision of CA. Subsequently, petitioners (heirs of Olimpio) moved for the
execution of the decision by RTC of Bulacan. The Deputy Sheriff submitted his report
stating in part that except for a portion thereof occupied by the private respondent which
the latter refused the vacate. Private respondent moved to quash the execution. RTC held
the decision of the sheriff to be null and void, and that the motion for demolition was
denied. Petitioners conteded that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion. They
assert that the CAR case, being an ejectment case survives the death of a party. Private
respondent, on the other hand, stress on the fact that the action is not an ordiary ejectment
but an agrarian case for the ejectment of the agricultural lessee.
ISSUE:
Won, the compulsory heirs inherit the favorable judgment obtained by the decedent,
thereby vesting to the former, all rights conferred by the judgment to the decedent.
RULING:
Petition is granted.
SC reads Sec. 36 (1), R.A. 3844, which provides, for the continuation in the enjoyment
and possession of an agricultural lessee of his landholding except when his dispossession
has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory. Under such
provision, the ejectment of an agricultural lessee was authorized not only when the
landowner-lessor desired to cultivate the landholding, but also when a member of his
immediate family so desired. The right of cultivation was extended to the landowners
immediate family members evidently to place the landowner-lessor in parity with the
agricultural lessee who was (and still) allowed to cultivate the land with the aid of his
farm household. Whether used in reference to the agricultural lessor or lessee, the term
personal cultivation cannot b given restricted connotation to mean a right personal and
exclusive to either the lessor or lessee. In either case, the right extends to the members of
the lessors or lessees immediate family. The CAR case not being a purely personal right,
the same was transmitted to petitioners as heirs and successors-in-interest.