www.lawphil.net

G.R. No. L-47757-61

Republic of the PhilippinesSSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

GG..RR.. NNoo.. LL--4477775577--6611 JJaannuuaarryy 2288,, 11998800

TTHHEE PPEEOOPPLLEE OOFF TTHHEE PPHHIILLIIPPPPIINNEESS,, AABBUUNNDDIIOO RR.. EELLLLOO,, AAss44tthh AAssssiissttaanntt ooff PPrroovviinncciiaall BBoohhooll VVIICCEENNTTEE DDEE LLAA SSEERRNNAA..JJRR..,, aass ccoommppllaaiinnaanntt aallll pprriivvaattee pprroosseeccuuttoorr,, petitioners,vs.HHOONN.. VVIICCEENNTTEE BB.. EECCHHAAVVEESS,, JJRR..,, aass JJuuddggee ooff tthhee CCoouurrtt ooffFFiirrsstt IInnssttaannccee ooff BBoohhooll BBrraanncchh IIII,, AANNOO DDAACCUULLLLOO,,GGEERROONNIIMMOO OORROOYYAANN,, MMAARRIIOO AAPPAARRIICCII,, RRUUPPEERRTTOO CCAAJJEESSaanndd MMOODDEESSTTOO SS SSUUEELLLLOO,, respondents.

AAQQUUIINNOO,, JJ..::pp

The legal issue in this case is whether Presidential Decree No.772, which penalizes squatting and similar acts, applies toagricultural lands. The decree (which took effect on August 20,1975) provides:

SECTION 1. Any person who, with the use of force,intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of theabsence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds inoccupying or possessing the property of the latteragainst his will for residential, commercial or anyother purposes, shall be punished by animprisonment ranging from six months to one yearor a fine of not less than one thousand nor morethan five thousand pesos at the discretion of thecourt, with subsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency. (2nd paragraph is omitted.)

The record shows that on October 25, 1977 Fiscal Abundio R.Ello filed with the lower court separate informations againstsixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized byPresidential Decree No. 772. The information against MarioAparici which is similar to the other fifteen informations, reads:

That sometime in the year 1974 continuously up tothe present at barangay Magsaysay, municipality ofTalibon, province of Bohol, Philippines and withinthe jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused, with stealth and strategy,enter into, occupy and cultivate a portion of agrazing land physically occupied, possessed andclaimed by Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr. as successorto the pasture applicant Celestino de la Serna ofPasture Lease Application No. 8919, accused'sentrance into the area has been and is still againstthe win of the offended party; did then and therewillfully, unlawfully, and feloniously squat andcultivate a portion of the said grazing land; saidcultivating has rendered a nuisance to and hasdeprived the pasture applicant from the full usethereof for which the land applied for has beenintended, that is preventing applicant's cattle fromgrazing the whole area, thereby causing damageand prejudice to the said applicant-possessor-occupant, Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr. (sic)

Five of the informations, wherein Ano Dacullo, GeronimoOroyan, Mario Aparici, Ruperto Cajes and Modesto Suello werethe accused, were raffled to Judge Vicente B. Echaves, Jr. ofBranch II (Criminal Cases Nos. 1824, 1828, 1832, 1833 and1839, respectively).

Before the accused could be arraigned, Judge Echaves motuproprio issued an omnibus order dated December 9, 1977dismissing the five informations on the grounds (1) that it wasalleged that the accused entered the land through "stealth andstrategy", whereas under the decree the entry should beeffected "with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or takingadvantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner", and(2) that under the rule of ejusdem generis the decree does notapply to the cultivation of a grazing land.

Because of that order, the fiscal amended the informations byusing in lieu of "stealth and strategy" the expression "withthreat, and taking advantage of the absence of the ranchownerand/or tolerance of the said ranchowner". The fiscal asked thatthe dismissal order be reconsidered and that the amendedinformations be admitted.

The lower court denied the motion. It insisted that the phrase"and for other purposes" in the decree does not includeagricultural purposes because its preamble does not mentionthe Secretary of Agriculture and makes reference to theaffluent class.

From the order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this Courtunder Republic Act No. 5440. The appeal is devoid of merit.

We hold that the lower court correctly ruled that the decreedoes not apply to pasture lands because its preamble showsthat it was intended to apply to squatting in urbancommunities or more particularly to illegal constructions insquatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. The squatingcomplained of involves pasture lands in rural areas.

The preamble of the decree is quoted below:

WHEREAS, it came to my knowledge that despite theissuance of Letter of Instruction No. 19 datedOctober 2, 1972, directing the Secretaries ofNational Defense, Public Work. 9 andcommunications, Social Welfare and the Director ofPublic Works, the PHHC General Manager, thePresidential Assistant on Housing and RehabilitationAgency, Governors, City and Municipal Mayors, andCity and District Engineers, "to remove an illegalconstructions including buildings on and alongesteros and river banks, those along railroad tracksand those built without permits on public andprivate property." squatting is still a major problemin urban communities all over the country;

WHEREAS, many persons or entities found to havebeen unlawfully occupying public and private landsbelong to the affluent class;

WHEREAS, there is a need to further intensify thegovernment's drive against this illegal and nefariouspractice.

It should be stressed that Letter of Instruction No. 19 refers toillegal constructions on public and private property. It iscomplemented by Letter of Instruction No. 19-A which providesfor the relocation of squatters in the interest of public health,safety and peace and order.

On the other hand, it should be noted that squatting on publicagricultural lands, like the grazing lands involved in this case, ispunished by Republic Act No. 947 which makes it unlawful forany person, corporation or association to forcibly enter oroccupy public agricultural lands. That law provides:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any personcorporation or association to enter or occupy,through force, intimidation, threat, strategy orstealth, any public agriculture land including suchpublic lands as are granted to private individualsunder the provision of the Public Land Act or anyother laws providing for the of public agriculturelands in the Philippines and are duly covered by thecorresponding applications for the notwithstandingstanding the fact that title thereto still remains in theGovernment or for any person, natural or judicial toinvestigate induce or force another to commit suchacts.

Violations of the law are punished by a fine of not exceedingone thousand or imprisonment for not more than one year, orboth such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court,with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. (SeePeople vs. Lapasaran 100 Phil. 40.)

The rule of ejusdem generis (of the same kind or species)invoked by the trial court does not apply to this case. Here, theintent of the decree is unmistakable. It is intended to applyonly to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions.The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutoryconstruction which is resorted to when the legislative intent isuncertain (Genato Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals,

104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S. 1049-50).

WHEREFORE, the trial court's order of dismissal is affirmed. Nocosts.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion Jr. and Abad Santos, J., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation