Landowner needs protection vs harassment

My husband and I , wanting to have a small farm of our own, bought a 4.35 hectares farm lot in Gapan from my mother. Meanwhile that we could not work on the farm, we leased 4 hectares to two tenants (2 hectares per tenant) who were previous tenants of our parents on the same farm. The remaining 3,500 sq.m. is not part of the leasehold arrangement.

My husband and I who are senior citizens and semi-retired from active work have decided to make use of our property so that we can enjoy the remaining years of our life, undergo proper medical treatment for our heart ailment and hypertension, give our son (a multiple stroke patient) proper medical treatment and rehabilitation, put up a small business to take care of our basic needs and settle some financial obligations.

For a start, we decided to sell l,000 sq.m. to the Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative Inc. (NEECO) so that they can put up their plant to service the needs of Gapan City. When one of our tenants learned this, he wanted to get half of the proceeds of the sale or as they compromised later, P700,000 for us and P 600,000 for them. Of course we did not and could not agree because of the following reasons:

l. Nowhere in the agrarian reform law or leasehold arrangement is it stated that tenants get half if ever the land is sold. At most, they are entitled to disturbance compensation which is equivalent to five times the average gross harvest of the landholding during the five preceding years (please refer to the primer on agrarian reform).

2. The 3,500 sq.m. (of which the l,000 sq.m. is part of) is not included or   not part of the leasehold arrangement.

When the electric company started to put up structures on the lot they bought, our tenant and his brothers started causing trouble, even warning us of bodily harm. This discouraged and frightened NEECO who has decided to cancel the sale.

We brought the matter to court and to make a long story short, we won the case. Our tenant, however, filed an appeal which was subsequently dismissed. Again, they filed an appeal and they vow to keep on appealing.

Don’t you think this is plain and simple harassment and delaying tactics so that we won’t anymore have a chance to make use of our land? Meanwhile, the tenant and his family continue to squat on our land which as I have said is not even part of their leasehold contract.

What safeguards or protection can we, senior citizens, get from  people like our tenant who continues to harass us, causing mental anguish, loss of business opportunities and potential income. Can we not exercise our rights of ownership over the small area of 3,500 sq.m. as compared to the 20,000 sq.m. being leased  to the tenant? — AMADA T.VALINO, Gapan, Nueva Ecija