G.R. No. 185669.

February 1, 2012.*

JUAN GALOPE, petitioner, vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN,

Represented by CELSO RABANG, respondent.
Agrarian Reform Law Tenancy Essential Elements of an
Agricultural Tenancy Relationship.The essential elements of an
agricultural tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee (2) the subject
matter of the relationship is agricultural land (3) there is consent
between the parties to the relationship (4) the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production (5) there is
personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and
the tenant or agricultural lessee.
Same Same Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844)
Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise known as the
Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural
leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement.Contrary
also to the CA and DARAB pronouncement, respondents act of
allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and receiving rentals
therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten tenancy
agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined
by the explicit provisions of a written contract alone. Section 5 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural
Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural leasehold
relation may exist upon an oral agreement. Thus, all the elements
of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Respondent is
the landowner petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of
their relationship is agricultural land, a farm land. They mutually
agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the
harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring about
agricultural production. After the harvest, petitioner pays rental
consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondents motion
to supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming,
further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly,
petitioners personal cultivation of the land is conceded by
respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they share in
the harvest.
Same Same A tenancy relationship, once established, entitles
the tenant to a security of tenure who can be ejected from the

agricultural landholding only on grounds provided by law.

Respondent, as landowner/agricultural lessor, has the burden to
prove the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of
petitioner, the tenant/agricul
_______________
*FIRST DIVISION.

734

734

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galope vs. Bugarin

tural lessee. This rule proceeds from the principle that a tenancy
relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to a security of
tenure. The tenant can only be ejected from the agricultural
landholding on grounds provided by law.
Same Same While the law explicitly requires the agricultural
lessee and his immediate family to work on the land, the hiring of
farm laborers by the tenant on a temporary, occasional, or
emergency basis does not negate the existence of the element of
personal cultivation essential in a tenancy or agricultural
leasehold relationship.We have held that the employment of
farm laborers to perform some aspects of work does not preclude
the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship, provided
that an agricultural lessee does not leave the entire process of
cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Indeed, while the law
explicitly requires the agricultural lessee and his immediate
family to work on the land, we have nevertheless declared that
the hiring of farm laborers by the tenant on a temporary,
occasional, or emergency basis does not negate the existence of
the element of personal cultivation essential in a tenancy or
agricultural leasehold relationship. There is no showing that
petitioner has left the entire process of cultivating the land to
Allingag. In fact, respondent has admitted that petitioner still
farms the land.
Same Same The law provides that nonpayment of lease
rental, if proven, is a valid ground to dispossess the tenant from
the landholding.On respondents claim that she will cultivate
the land, it is no longer a valid ground to eject petitioner. The
original provision of Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844 has been
removed from the statute books after its amendment by Section 7
of R.A. No. 6389 on September 10, 1971, to wit: SEC. 7. Section 36
(1) of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) The
landholding is declared by the department head upon

recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be

suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled
to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average
of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five
preceding calendar years. Since respondent failed to prove
nonpayment of rentals, petitioner may not be ejected from the
landholding. We emphasize, however, that as long as the tenancy
relationship subsists, petitioner must continue paying rentals.
For the law provides that nonpayment of lease rental, if proven, is
a valid ground to dispossess him of respondents land. Henceforth,
petitioner should see to it that his rental payments are properly
covered by receipts.
735

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

735

Galope vs. Bugarin

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Petitioner Juan Galope appeals the Decision1 dated
September 26, 2008 and Resolution2 dated December 12,
2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No.
97143. The CA ruled that there is no tenancy relationship
between petitioner and respondent Cresencia Bugarin.
The facts and antecedent proceedings are as follows:
Respondent owns a parcel of land located in Sto.
Domingo, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. NT229582.3 Petitioner farms the land.4
In Barangay Case No. 996, respondent complained that
she lent the land to petitioner in 1992 without an
agreement, that what she receives in return from petitioner
is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to
farm it on her own. Petitioner countered that respondent
cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a
long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to
P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was not
settled.5
Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a
petition for recovery of possession, ejectment and payment
of rentals before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case
No. 9378. Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to
petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave nothing in

return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for

the use of
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 5562. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon
with the concurrence of Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose
Catral Mendoza (now a Member of this Court).
2Id., at p. 71.
3Records, p. 7.
4Id., at p. 9.
5Id., at pp. 911.
736

736

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galope vs. Bugarin

the land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner mortgaged

the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the land.6
After due proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator
dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant
entitled to security of tenure. The Adjudicator said
substantial evidence prove the tenancy relationship
between petitioner and respondent. The Adjudicator noted
the certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) that petitioner is the registered farmer of the land
that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the tenant of
the land that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioners
possession and cultivation of the land that Allingag also
stated that petitioner hired him only as farm helper and
that respondents own witness, Cesar Andres, said that
petitioner is a farmer of the land.7
On appeal, the DARAB disagreed with the Adjudicator
and ruled that petitioner is not a de jure tenant. The
DARAB ordered petitioner to pay rentals and vacate the
land, and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to assist
in computing the rentals.
The DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the
parties and stressed that the elements of consent and
sharing are not present. The DARAB noted petitioners
failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate
receipts, and said that the affidavits of Allingag, Rolando
Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are selfserving and are not
concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of
rentals. The DARAB added that respondents intention to
lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied
tenancy for such lending was without consideration.8

Petitioner appealed, but the CA affirmed DARABs

ruling that no tenancy relationship exists that the
elements of consent and sharing are not present that
respondents act of lending her land without consideration
cannot be taken as implied tenancy and that no receipts
prove petitioners payment of rentals.9
_______________
6Id., at pp. 25.
7Id., at pp. 9798.
8Id., at pp. 141143.
9Rollo, pp. 5962.
737

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

737

Galope vs. Bugarin

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the

Petitioner alleges that the CA erred

instant

petition.

[I.]
x x x IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE
DARAB AND IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER THAT HE IS INDEED
A TENANT[]
[II.]
x x x IN RELYING MAINLY ON THE ABSENCE OF
RECEIPTS OF THE PAYMENTS OF LEASE RENTALS IN
DECLARING THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT AND SHARING
TO ESTABLISH A TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT[ AND]
[III.]
xxx WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT
DISCHARGED THE BURDEN [OF] PROVING BY WAY OF
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HIS ALLEGATIONS OF TENANCY
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT.10

The main issue to be resolved is whether there exists a

tenancy relationship between the parties.
Petitioner submits that substantial evidence proves the
tenancy relationship between him and respondent.
Specifically, he points out that (1) his possession of the land
is undisputed (2) the DAR certified that he is the
registered farmer of the land and (3) receipts prove his
payment of irrigation fees. On the absence of receipts as
proof of rental payments, he urges us to take judicial notice
of an alleged practice in the provinces that payments

between relatives are not supported by receipts. He also

calls our attention to the affidavits of Jose Allingag,
Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz attesting that he
pays 15 cavans of palay to respondent.11
_______________
10Id., at p. 16.
11Id., at pp. 1720.
738

738

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galope vs. Bugarin

In her comment, respondent says that no new issues and

substantial matters are raised in the petition. She thus
prays that we deny the petition for lack of merit.12
We find the petition impressed with merit and we hold
that the CA and DARAB erred in ruling that there is no
tenancy relationship between the parties.
The essential elements of an agricultural tenancy
relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant or agricultural lessee (2) the subject matter of the
relationship is agricultural land (3) there is consent
between the parties to the relationship (4) the purpose of
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production
(5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee and (6) the harvest is shared between
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.13
The CA and DARAB ruling that there is no sharing of
harvest is based on the absence of receipts to show
petitioners payment of rentals. We are constrained to
reverse them on this point. The matter of rental receipts is
not an issue given respondents admission that she receives
rentals from petitioner. To recall, respondents complaint in
Barangay Case No. 996 was that the rental or the amount
she receives from petitioner is not much.14 This fact is
evident on the record15 of said case which is signed by
respondent and was even attached as Annex D of her
DARAB petition. Consequently, we are thus unable to
agree with DARABs ruling that the affidavits16 of
witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the
equivalent thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete proof to
rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. Indeed,
respondents admission confirms their statement that
rentals are in fact being paid. Such admission

_______________
12Id., at p. 79.
13 Granada v. Bormaheco, Inc., G.R. No. 154481, July 27, 2007, 528
SCRA 259, 268.
14 Records, p. 9. Respondent said, Na siya ay tumatanggap ngunit
kaunti lamang.
15Id., at pp. 911.
16Id., at pp. 4849.
739

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

739

Galope vs. Bugarin

belies the claim of respondents representative, Celso

Rabang, that petitioner paid nothing for the use of the
land.
Contrary also to the CA and DARAB pronouncement,
respondents act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her
land and receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her
consent to an unwritten tenancy agreement. An
agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the
explicit provisions of a written contract alone.17 Section 518
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise known as the
Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an
agricultural leasehold relation may exist upon an oral
agreement.
Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy
relationship are present. Respondent is the landowner
petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their
relationship is agricultural land, a farm land.19 They
mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner
and share in the harvest. The purpose of their relationship
is clearly to bring about agricultural production. After the
harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its
equivalent in cash. Respondents motion20 to supervise
harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming,
further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly,
petitioners personal cultivation of the land21 is conceded by
respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they
share in the harvest.
Petitioners status as a de jure tenant having been
established, we now address the issue of whether there is a
valid ground to eject petitioner from the land.
Respondent, as landowner/agricultural lessor, has the
burden to prove the existence of a lawful cause for the
ejectment of petitioner,

_______________
17Supra note 13, at 271.
18 SEC. 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation.The
agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in
accordance with Section [4] of this Code and, in other cases, either orally
or in writing, expressly or impliedly.
19Records, p. 20 (lupang sakahin).
20Id., at pp. 6768.
21 Id., at p. 9. Respondent said, kasalukuyan ay sinasaka ni Juan
Galope.
740

740

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galope vs. Bugarin

the tenant/agricultural lessee.22 This rule proceeds from

the principle that a tenancy relationship, once established,
entitles the tenant to a security of tenure.23 The tenant can
only be ejected from the agricultural landholding on
grounds provided by law.24
Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 enumerates these grounds,
to wit:
SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding Exceptions.Notwith
standing any agreement as to the period or future surrender of
the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment
and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession
has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and
executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The agricultural lessorowner or a member of his
immediate family will personally cultivate the landholding or will
convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential,
factory, hospital or school site or other useful nonagricultural
purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled
to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his
landholding in addition to his rights under Sections [25] and [34],
except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor
is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of
disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an
advance notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment
proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should
the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or
fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year
after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he
acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand
possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred
by him because of said dispossession

_______________
22R.A. No. 3844, SEC. 37. Burden of Proof.The burden of proof to show the
existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest
upon the agricultural lessor.
23 R.A. No. 3844, SEC. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation.The
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural
lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold
relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of
tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by
the Court for causes herein provided.
24 PerezRosario v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140796, June 30, 2006, 494
SCRA 66, 82.
741

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

741

Galope vs. Bugarin

(2)
The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply
with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the
provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous
event or force majeure
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the
landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously
agreed upon
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm
practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section [29]
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement
thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has
unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the
agricultural lessee
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when
it falls due: Provided, That if the nonpayment of the rental shall
be due to crop failure to the extent of seventyfive per centum as a
result of a fortuitous event, the nonpayment shall not be a
ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental
due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished or
(7) The lessee employed a sublessee on his landholding in
violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section [27].

Through Rabang, respondent alleged (1) nonpayment of

any consideration, (2) lack of tenancy relationship, (3)
petitioner mortgaged the land to Allingag who allegedly
possesses the land, and (4) she will manage/cultivate the
land.25 None of these grounds were proven by the
respondent.
As aforesaid, respondent herself admitted petitioners
payment of rentals. We also found that a tenancy
relationship exists between the parties.

On the supposed mortgage, Allingag himself denied it in

his affidavit.26 No such a deed of mortgage was submitted
in evidence. Rabangs claim is based on a hearsay
statement of Cesar Andres that he came to know the
mortgage from residents of the place where the land is
located.27
_______________
25Records, p. 3.
26Id., at p. 48.
27Id., at p. 8. Andres said, Na aking napagalaman na ang kanyang
sinasakang ito ay kanyang naisanla kay Jose Allingag na siya ngayon
ang makikita at lihitimong nagsasaka sa nasabing lupang sakahin Na ito
ay
742

742

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Galope vs. Bugarin

That Allingag possesses the land is also based on

Andress hearsay statement. On the contrary, Allingag
stated in his affidavit that he is merely petitioners farm
helper.28 We have held that the employment of farm
laborers to perform some aspects of work does not preclude
the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship,
provided that an agricultural lessee does not leave the
entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers.
Indeed, while the law explicitly requires the agricultural
lessee and his immediate family to work on the land, we
have nevertheless declared that the hiring of farm laborers
by the tenant on a temporary, occasional, or emergency
basis does not negate the existence of the element of
personal cultivation essential in a tenancy or agricultural
leasehold relationship.29 There is no showing that
petitioner has left the entire process of cultivating the land
to Allingag. In fact, respondent has admitted that
petitioner still farms the land.30
On respondents claim that she will cultivate the land, it
is no longer a valid ground to eject petitioner. The original
provision of Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844 has been
removed from the statute books31 after its amendment by
Section 7 of R.A. No. 638932 on September 10, 1971, to wit:
SEC. 7. Section 36 (1) of the same Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon
recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be

suited for residential,

_______________
aking napagalaman mula pa noong taong 1997, sa dahilang ako ay madalas sa
nasabing lugar at halos lahat ng nakatira doon ay pawang aking mga kaibigan at
kamaganakan....
28 Id., at p. 48. Allingag said, at gumagawa ako sa nasabing saka bilang
katulong lamang ni Juan Galope .
29Supra note 24, at 8485.
30Supra note 21.
31 See Balatbat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 36378, January 27, 1992, 205
SCRA 419, 425.
32 AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED [3844],

AS

AMENDED, OTHERWISE

KNOWN AS THE AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
743

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012

743

Galope vs. Bugarin

commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes: Provided,

That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance
compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross
harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding
calendar years.

Since respondent failed to prove nonpayment of rentals,

petitioner may not be ejected from the landholding. We
emphasize, however, that as long as the tenancy
relationship subsists, petitioner must continue paying
rentals. For the law provides that nonpayment of lease
rental, if proven, is a valid ground to dispossess him of
respondents land. Henceforth, petitioner should see to it
that his rental payments are properly covered by receipts.
Finally, the records show that Allingag, petitioners co
respondent in DARAB Case No. 9378, did not join
petitioners appeal to the CA. If Allingag did not file a
separate appeal, the DARAB decision had become final as
to him. We cannot grant him any relief.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE
the Decision dated September 26, 2008 and Resolution
dated December 12, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA
G.R. SP No. 97143.
The petition filed by respondent Cresencia Bugarin in
DARAB Case No. 9378 is hereby DISMISSED insofar as
petitioner Juan Galope is concerned.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), LeonardoDe

Bersamin and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

Castro,

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed.

Note.The rule is settled that failure to pay the lease
rentals must be willful and deliberate in order to be
considered as ground for dispossession of an agricultural
tenant. (Antonio vs. Manahan, 656 SCRA 190 [2011]).
o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.