Ricardo is the owner of a parcel of land planted with coconut trees and covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title. Occupying said land were thirteen people who had constructed houses thereon. Ricardo had verbal lease agreements with these people who paid him monthly rentals, except Raymundo whom he only allowed to use the sixty two (62) coconut trees for P186 a month from where the latter gathered tuba. To facilitate gathering of tuba, Ricardo also granted the request of Raymundo to construct his house on the land.
Later on, Ricardo decided to convert his land into a commercial center. So he demanded all those occupying his land to vacate the premises especially because they have not been paying their monthly rentals. All the occupants, including Raymundo, however refused to vacate, claiming that as tenants of the land they have a right of first refusal to purchase it under Presidential Decree 1517 otherwise known as the Urban Land Reform Act. As proof, they presented a petition filed with the National Housing Authority to declare the land they were occupying as urban land reform area, although the land had not yet been so declared.
Could Ricardo eject the tenants including Raymundo from his land?
Yes.
The area has not yet been proclaimed an urban land reform zone (ULRZ). In fact, they just filed a petition requesting that it be declared as such. This request would not have been necessary if the property was an ULRZ.
So from the moment Ricardo demanded that the tenants vacate the premises for failure to pay the rentals the verbal lease agreements ceased to exist as there was termination of the lease.
With respect to Raymundo, there was even no lease agreement. He was only allowed to use the coconut trees to gather tuba. This arrangement would show that it is usufruct and not a lease. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it, or the law otherwise provides.
While Ricardo allowed Raymundo to construct his house on the land, it was only to facilitate his gathering of tuba. This would be in the nature of a personal easement under Article 614 of the Civil Code which means an easement established for the benefit of a person, instead of an immovable or real property (Alcantara et al. vs. Reta Jr. G.R. 136996 December 14, 2001).