[CA-G.R. SP No. 58564. January 7, 2002.] ANASTACIO CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs.

ROSENDO CONSTANTINO, CARMELITA CONSTANTINO, and EUGENIA CONSTANTINO, respondents. DECISION REGINO, J p: This is a petition for review of the Decision, dated March 23, 2000, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Diliman, Quezon City, docketed as DARAB Case No. 4209, which dismissed petitioner's appeal of the Decision, dated January 16, 1995, rendered by Jose V. Reyes, Provincial Adjudicator of Region III, Malolos, Bulacan. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: The subject of controversy is a certain one (1) hectare parcel of land, originally covered by OCT No. 0-191 in the name of Maxima L Marcelino-Perlas, located at Taal, Pulilan, Bulacan. It is of no dispute that the original tenant of the subject property is Amado Constantino, the father of herein petitioner and respondents. Respondents filed a complaint for the purpose of imposing their right as "co-tenants" of the petitioner in the subject property. In the complaint 1 filed, respondents made the following allegations: First, they alleged that they are "co-tenants" of that particular parcel of land in controversy, contending among others that as "co-tenants", alternately with the petitioner, they took turns in cultivating the said landholding. Second, they alleged that on November 23, 1988, respondents allowed petitioner Anastacio Constantino to exercise his right, as co-alternate tenant, to cultivate the land for five (5) consecutive years on the condition that the after the lapse of the given period, he shall allow his cotenant the same privilege. However, after the expiration of five year period petitioner refused to allow his sister Carmelita Constantino enter the said landholding and asserted the right to cultivate the land as sole tenant. Thirdly, on the aforementioned year, petitioner allegedly approached the landowner Maxima Marcelino-Perlas and offered to surrender the possession of the subject land for a valuable consideration to the exclusion and prejudice of the other "co-tenants". In petitioner's Answer 2, he made the following counter-allegations: He contends that he is the sole tenant of the land as evidenced by the "Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan" 3. He further contends that the respondents (therein complainants) never cultivated the land nor have they helped in the cultivation of the same. Also, he asserts that he is the only helper-tiller of their father for a long period since his elementary years until he reached the age of seventeen (17); that after some time the tenancy right over the land has been transferred to petitioner by its new owner, Alicia P. Andan, daughter of the former owner Maxima Marcelino-Perlas by virtue of the "Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan". Petitioner denied as well that he offered voluntarily to surrender the subject property,

contending in fact that it was Maxima who approached and offered the amount of P200,000.00 the consideration for the surrender/relinquishment of his tenancy right over the subject land. After due hearing, on January 16, 1995, the Provincial Adjudicator of Region III, Malolos, Bulacan, Jose V. Reyes issued the decision, ruling as follows: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Ordering the respondent Anastacio Constantino to respect the right of complainant Rosendo Constantino as his co-tenants; 2. Ordering the respondent Anastacio Constantino to vacate and allow his sister Carmelita Constantino the next cultivator of the subject landholding; 3. Ordering all parties to respect the agreement of alternately tilling the land for five consecutive years each. SO ORDERED." 4 As a result, petitioner interposed an appeal of the aforesaid decision. After due consideration of the case, DARAB issued a Decision, dated March 23, 2000, to wit: "WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the appeal for lack of merit. The decision dated January 16, 1995 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. SO ORDERED." 5 Aggrieved by the aforementioned decision of the DARAB, petitioner seeks redress to this Court through a petition for review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: "WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE DARAB ERRED IN DECLARING THAT RESPONDENTS HEREIN ARE BONAFIDE TENANTS OF SUBJECT LANDHOLDING." 6 The petition must fail. Petitioner contends that the DARAB erred in holding the respondents as bonafide tenants of the subject property. Petitioner strongly maintains that he is the sole tenant of the property in controversy, asserting among others, that he is the successor of their father, Amado Constantino, who is the original tenant. He asserts that respondents' reliance on the Affidavit executed by Maxima M. Perlas and their Joint Affidavit is "self-serving" or, in other words, weak since there exist an inconsistency as between the aforesaid affidavits. Petitioner puts forward that the inconsistency, with respect to the date when the alleged scheme of alternate tenancy has been established, renders the said documentary evidence of respondents of doubtful probative value. 7 He alleges that the presence of such inconsistency makes the document to appear perjurious. Further, petitioner alleges that despite the existence of an alleged alternate system of tenancy between respondents and Maxima M. Perlas, who is the usufructuary of the

subject property, considering that he executed a leasehold contract with Alicia Anadan, the naked owner, then the said agreement prevails over that which the respondents entered into with Maxima M. Perlas. On the other hand, respondents assert that since it is not disputed that the original tenant of the subject landholding is their father, it only follows that upon the latter's incapacity and death, as provided for by law, they are the successors to their father's tenancy rights over the subject property. Thus, they put forward their claim of being "co-tenants" to the property in controversy. Respondents allege that the affidavit of Maxima M. Perlas supports their assertion that they are "co-tenants" since 1974 their father had been incapacitated due to old age and deteriorating health. Thus, on the account of their father's permanent incapacity and death, they strongly maintain that their father's tenancy right legally accrued to them. We find petitioner's contention devoid of merit, as hereafter elucidated. This Court upholds the factual findings and conclusions made by the DARAB that the respondents are bonafide tenants of the property in controversy given the fact that it has the opportunity to review the evidence submitted before it and with its specialized function, such expertise or special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical questions or essential factual matters 8, with all the more reason that this Court would not want to disturb such findings of fact. Settled is the rule that the findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but more often than not even finality. 9 Further, in agrarian cases all that is required is mere substantial evidence. That has been the consistent ruling of this Court in a long line of cases. 10 This substantial evidence rule was later incorporated in P.D. 946 which took effect on June 17, 1976 and has been expressly made applicable to agrarian cases. Section 18 of the said decree provides: "The Court of Appeals shall affirm the decision or order or the portions thereof appealed from if the findings of fact in the said decision or order are supported by substantial evidence as basis thereof, and the conclusions stated therein are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence . . ." Under this rule, all that the appellate court has to do, insofar as the evidence is concerned, is to find out if the decision is supported by substantial evidence. 11 So much so that, the findings of fact of the Court of Agrarian Relations, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive on the appellate tribunal, 12 or as in the case under consideration the DARAB's factual findings. Substantial evidence does not necessarily import preponderant evidence, as is required in an ordinary civil case. It has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, for the appellate court cannot substitute its own judgment or criteria for that of the trial court in determining wherein has the weight of evidence or what evidence is entitled to belief. 13 After a careful review of the records submitted before this Court, We are of the opinion that the DARAB based its decision on substantial evidence. In the case at bar, the DARAB declared the respondents bonafide tenants on the basis of the following findings of fact:

There is undenied evidence that the late Amado Constantino, father of the herein petitioner and respondents, during his lifetime, was a former tenant of a portion of land owned by Maxima M. Perlas. The Court, after careful examination of the evidence on record, lends more credence to respondents undisturbed claim, substantially corroborated by Maxima M. Perlas' sworn statement and their Joint Affidavit, that they succeeded their father's tenancy rights and has been cultivating their father's landholding in an alternate scheme since 1974, the time when their father became incapacitated due to old age and deteriorating health conditions. Also, borne by the records of the case, the DARAB correctly ruled that when their father died on November 23, 1987, both the petitioner and respondents succeeded in cultivating the subject landholding in an alternate arrangement. The records disclosed that after their father's death, although the original owner transferred the ownership of the subject property to her daughter, she retained usufructuary rights over the said property while she is alive, Maxima M. Perlas had an internal arrangement with the heirs of Amado Constantino regarding their agreed alternate scheme of cultivation. Such quantum of evidence cannot be washed way by a mere allegation that petitioner has long been his father's helper in the cultivation of the subject landholding until his father's death, and that on account of said constant help in the tilling of the landholding, it only follows that he naturally succeeds to his father's tenancy rights. This Court adheres to the long standing doctrine that, in cases where affidavits are submitted as evidence, without clear and convincing proof, it is presumed regular. It must be underscored that the notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof. 14 A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. 15 Thus, the bare allegation of petitioner that the affidavit executed by Maxima M. Perlas is of doubtful veracity is untenable. Being notarial documents, they are evidence of the facts in clear, unequivocal manner therein expressed. As such, they have in their favor, the presumption of regularity. 16 To contradict facts in a notarial document and the presumption of regularity in its favor, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. 17 A careful evaluation of the evidence presented by petitioner reveal its insufficiency to detract from the evidentiary force of the public instrument which appears on its face, as having been drawn up with all the formalities prescribed by the law. The petitioner's evidence cannot overturn the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. 18 Petitioner presented no other proof of the alleged irregularity of the affidavit, proving the "co-tenancy" between petitioner and respondents, executed by Maxima M. Perlas. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. 19 This leads Us to the inescapable conclusion that respondents are "co-tenants" of the subject property. The observation and conclusion of the DARAB that the respondents legally succeed to their father's tenancy rights, such that the knowledge and concern of the landowner to the internal arrangement of the heirs of Amado Constantino is tantamount to implied consent that the said heirs are successors to the tenancy rights, extinguished by death of their father, 20 appeared to be well taken, as correctly ruled by the DARAB, under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended "Sec. 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties. In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent

incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity or (c) the next eldest descendant in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of the agricultural year: Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established. In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs." Petitioner cannot simply deny the undisputed the fact that upon their father's incapacity and death, being heirs to their father's tenancy rights, in the absence of any other agreement other than that provided for by law, all of them are entitled to succeed to their father's tenancy rights in the order provided for by law. Thus, given the aforecited express provision of law, petitioner cannot just simply lay sole claim over their father's tenancy rights. In sum, it bears reiteration that since in agrarian cases all that is required is mere substantial evidence 21, the agrarian court's findings of fact which attained the minimum evidentiary support demanded by law. 22 Thus, We find no reason to deviate to the factual findings of the DARAB leading them the inevitable conclusion that the respondents are petitioner's co-tenants to the subject landholding. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the petitioner is hereby DISMISSED. The decision of the DARAB promulgated on March 23, 2000 is AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.