People of the Philippines VS. Echavez; G.R. No. L-47757-61 January 28, 1980

RATIONALE:

The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory construction which is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain (Genato Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S. 1049-50)


FACTS:

1. On October 25, 1977, Fiscal Abundio R. Ello filed with the lower court separate informations against sixteen persons charging them with squatting as penalized by Presidential Decree No. 772.

2. Said fiscal alleged that sometime in 1974 up to the present, the accused, with stealth and strategy, enter into, squat and cultivate a portion of the said grazing land physically occupied, possessed and claimed by Atty. Vicente de la Serna Jr. as successor to the pasture applicant Celestino de la Serna of Pasture Lease Application No. 8919. 

3. Said cultivating has rendered a nuisance to and has deprived the pasture applicant from the full use thereof for which the land applied for has been intended, that is preventing applicant's cattle from grazing the whole area, thereby causing damage and prejudice to the said applicant-possessor-occupant, Atty. Vicente de la Serna, Jr

4. Five (5) of the accused were tried by herein respondent, Judge Echaves, who motu proprio issued a December 9, 1977 omnibus order dismissing the five information on the grounds that:

  (1) it was alleged that the accused entered the land through "stealth and strategy", whereas under the decree the entry should be effected "with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner", and  

  (2) under the rule of ejusdem generis, the decree does not apply to the cultivation of a grazing land

5. The fiscal then amended the information and used the expression  "with threat, and taking advantage of the absence of the ranchowner and/or tolerance of the said ranch owner" instead of "stealth and strategy" and asked that the dismissal order be reconsidered and the amended information be admitted.

6. The lower court denied the motion enunciating that the phrase "and for other purposes" in the decree does not include agricultural purposes because its preamble does not mention the Secretary of Agriculture and makes reference to the affluent class.

7. Thus, this appeal.


ISSUE:

Whether Presidential Decree No. 772, which penalizes squatting and similar acts, applies to agricultural lands.


RULING:

NO. The decree does not apply to pasture lands.

PD no. 772's preamble:

WHEREAS, it came to my knowledge that despite the issuance of Letter of Instruction No. 19 dated October 2, 1972, directing the Secretaries of National Defense, Public Work. 9 and communications, Social Welfare and the Director of Public Works, the PHHC General Manager, the Presidential Assistant on Housing and Rehabilitation Agency, Governors, City and Municipal Mayors, and City and District Engineers, "to remove an illegal constructions including buildings on and along esteros and river banks, those along railroad tracks and those built without permits on public and private property." squatting is still a major problem in urban communities all over the country;

Said decree's preamble shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in urban communities or more particularly to illegal constructions in squatter areas made by well-to-do individuals. 

In the case at bar, the squatting filed against violation of PD no. 772 involves pasture lands in rural areas.

On the other hand, it R.A. No. 947 punishes any person, corporation or association to forcibly enter or occupy public agricultural lands.

Although the ruling of the trial court is affirmed, The rule of ejusdem generis (of the same kind or species) invoked by the trial court does not apply to this case since the intent of the decree is unmistakable. 

It is intended to apply only to urban communities, particularly to illegal constructions. The rule of ejusdem generis is merely a tool of statutory construction which is resorted to when the legislative intent is uncertain (Genato Commercial Corp. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 615,618; 28 C.J.S. 1049-50).

Comments