On appeal, it was certified by the Court of Appeals to this Court on a finding that only a pure question of law was involved. 142.81 piculs 2.88 hec. 198.26 piculs 4.67 hec. 212.83 piculs 5.39 hec. 26 piculs 2.46 hec.
Defendants pray that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
76 and Ismael Gutierrez, et. While the subject landholdings had sugar quota allotments before 1967 or during the time that Sugar Quota Allotment was still required. The only principal issue left to be resolved is whether or not, for purposes of sugar production, the plaintiffs have the right to shift from sharehold to leasehold. Hence, the present appeal. The plaintiffs-appellants contend that Section 35 of R. A. No. 3844, as amended, does not include sugarlands in its enumeration of agricultural lands exempted from leasehold.