7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

LUCIARODRIGUEZAND

G.R.No.171972
PRUDENCIARODRIGUEZ,
Petitioners,

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,

VELASCO,JR.,
versus

LEONARDODECASTRO,

DELCASTILLO,and

PEREZ,JJ.

TERESITAV.SALVADOR,

Promulgated:
Respondent.
June8,2011
xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Agriculturaltenancyisnotpresumedbutmustbeprovenbythepersonallegingit.

[1]
ThisPetitionforCertiorari underRule65oftheRulesofCourtassailstheAugust24,2005
[2]
[3]
Decision andtheFebruary20,2006Resolution oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.
[4]
86599.However,perResolution ofthisCourtdatedAugust30,2006,theinstantpetitionshallbe
treatedasaPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45ofthesameRules.

FactualAntecedents

[5]
OnMay22,2003,respondentTeresitaV.SalvadorfiledaComplaintforUnlawfulDetainer,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

1/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

docketedasCivilCaseNo.330,againstpetitionersLucia(Lucia)andPrudenciaRodriguez,motherand
[6]
daughter, respectively before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dalaguete, Cebu. Respondent
allegedthatsheistheabsoluteownerofaparceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)
[7]
No.P27140 issuedbyvirtueofFreePatentNo.(VII5)2646inthenameoftheHeirsofCristino
[8]
SalvadorrepresentedbyTeresitaSalvador thatpetitionersacquiredpossessionofthesubjectlandby
[9]
meretoleranceofherpredecessorsininterest andthatdespiteseveralverbalandwrittendemands
[10]
madebyher,petitionersrefusedtovacatethesubjectland.

[11]
IntheirAnswer, petitionersinterposedthedefenseofagriculturaltenancy.Luciaclaimedthat
sheandherdeceasedhusband,Serapio,enteredthesubjectlandwiththeconsentandpermissionof
respondents predecessorsininterest, siblings Cristino and Sana Salvador, under the agreement that
LuciaandSerapiowoulddevotethepropertytoagriculturalproductionandsharetheproducewiththe
[12]
Salvadorsiblings.
Sincethereisatenancyrelationshipbetweentheparties,petitionersarguedthatit
istheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdjudicationBoard(DARAB)whichhasjurisdictionoverthe
[13]
caseandnottheMTC.

OnJuly10,2003,thepreliminaryconferencewasterminatedandthepartieswereorderedto
submittheirrespectivepositionpaperstogetherwiththeaffidavitsoftheirwitnessesandotherevidence
[14]
tosupporttheirrespectiveclaims.

RulingoftheMunicipalTrialCourt

[15]
On September 10, 2003, the MTC promulgated a Decision
finding the existence of an
agriculturaltenancyrelationshipbetweentheparties,andthereby,dismissingthecomplaintforlackof
jurisdiction.PertinentportionsoftheDecisionread:

Basedonthefactspresented,itisestablishedthatdefendantLuciaRodriguezandherhusband
SerapioRodriguezwereinstitutedasagriculturaltenantsonthelotinquestionbytheoriginalownerwho
wasthepredecessorininterestofhereinplaintiffTeresitaSalvador.Theconsentgivenby[the]original
owner to constitute [defendants] as agricultural tenants of subject landholdings binds plaintiff who as
successorininterestoftheoriginalownerCristinoSalvadorstepsintothelattersshoesacquiringnotonly
hisrightsbutalsohisobligationstowardsthehereindefendants.Intheinstantcase,theconsenttotenurial
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

2/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

arrangementbetweenthepartiesisinferredfromthefactthattheplaintiffandhersuccessorsininterest
hadreceivedtheirshareoftheharvestsofthepropertyindisputefromthedefendants.

Moreover, dispossession of agricultural tenants can only be ordered by the Court for causes
expresslyprovidedunderSec.36ofR.A.3844.However,thisCourthasnojurisdictionoverdetainercase
involving agricultural tenants as ejectment and dispossession of said tenants is within the primary and
exclusivejurisdictionoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformandAgriculturalBoard(DARAB).([S]ee
Sec.1(1.4)DARAB2003RulesofProcedure[.])

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,theinstantcomplaintisherebyorderedDISMISSED
forlackofjurisdiction.

[16]
SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,respondentfiledanappeal,docketedasCivilCaseNo.AV1237,withtheRegional
[17]
TrialCourt(RTC)ofArgao,Cebu,Branch26.

RulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt

[18]
OnJanuary12,2004,theRTCrenderedaDecision
remandingthecaseto
theMTCforpreliminaryhearingtodeterminewhethertenancyrelationshipexistsbetweentheparties.

[19]
Petitionersmovedforreconsideration
arguingthatthepurposeofapreliminaryhearingwas
servedbythepartiessubmissionoftheirrespectivepositionpapersandothersupportingevidence.

OnJune23,2004,theRTCgrantedthereconsiderationandaffirmedtheMTCDecisiondated
[20]
September10,2003.ThefalloofthenewDecision
reads:

WHEREFORE,themotionforreconsiderationisGRANTED.TheDecisiondatedSeptember10,
2003oftheMunicipalTrialCourtofDalaguete,Cebu,isherebyAFFIRMED.

[21]
ITISSODECIDED.

[22]
[23]
Respondent sought reconsideration
but it was denied by the RTC in an Order
dated
August18,2004.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

3/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

[24]
Thus, respondent filed a Petition for Review
with the CA, docketed as CA G.R. SP No.
86599.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

OnAugust24,2005,theCArenderedjudgmentinfavorofrespondent.Itruledthatnotenancy
relationship exists between the parties because petitioners failed to prove that respondent or her
[25]
predecessorsininterestconsentedtothetenancyrelationship.
TheCAlikewisegavenoprobative
valuetotheaffidavits
of petitioners witnesses as it found their statements insufficient to establish petitioners status as
[26]
agriculturaltenants.
Ifatall,theaffidavitsmerelyshowedthatpetitionersoccupiedthesubjectland
[27]
withtheconsentoftheoriginalowners.
Andsincepetitionersareoccupyingthesubjectlandby
mere tolerance, they are bound by an implied promise to vacate the same upon demand by the
[28]
[29]
respondent.
Failingtodoso,petitionersareliabletopaydamages.
Thus,theCAdisposedof
thecaseinthismanner:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us

SETTINGASIDE,asweherebysetaside,thedecisionrenderedbytheRTCofArgao,CebuonJune23,
2004inCivilCaseNo.AV1237andORDERINGtheremandofthiscasetotheMTCofDalaguete,
Cebuforthepurposeofdeterminingtheamountofactualdamagessufferedbythe[respondent]byreason
ofthe[petitioners]refusalandfailuretoturnoverto[respondent]thepossessionandenjoymentofthe
landand,then,tomakesuchawardofdamagestothe[respondent].

[30]
SOORDERED.

Issues

Hence,thispetitionraisingthefollowingissues:

I.
WHETHERXXXTHECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETION
AMOUNTINGTOLACKORINEXCESSOFJURISDICTIONINRULINGTHATPETITIONERS
DEFENDANTSARENOTTENANTSOFTHESUBJECTLAND.

II.
WHETHERXXXSUCHRULINGOFTHECOURTOFAPPEALSHASFACTUALANDLEGAL
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

4/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

[31]
BASISANDISSUPPORTEDWITHSUBSTANTIALEVIDENCE.

PetitionersArguments

[32]
PetitionerscontendthatunderSection5
ofRepublicActNo.3844,otherwiseknownasthe
AgriculturalLandReformCode,tenancymaybeconstitutedbyagreementofthepartieseitherorallyor
[33]
inwriting,expresslyorimpliedly.
Inthiscase,therewasanimpliedconsenttoconstituteatenancy
relationshipasrespondentandherpredecessorsininterestallowedpetitionerstocultivatethelandand
[34]
sharetheharvestwiththelandownersformorethan40years.

Petitioners further argue that the CA erred in disregarding the affidavits executed by their
[35]
witnessesasthesearesufficienttoprovetheexistenceofatenancyrelationship.
Petitionersclaim
[36]
thattheirwitnesseshadpersonalknowledgeofthecultivationandthesharingofharvest.

RespondentsArguments

Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that petitioners are not agricultural tenants because mere
[37]
cultivationofanagriculturallanddoesnotmakethetilleranagriculturaltenant.
Respondentinsists
[38]
thatherpredecessorsininterestmerelytoleratedpetitionersoccupationofthesubjectland.

OurRuling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

Agricultural tenancy relationship does not exist in the

instantcase.

Agriculturaltenancyexistswhenallthefollowingrequisitesarepresent:1)thepartiesarethe
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

5/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

agricultural land 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship 4) the purpose of the
relationshipistobringaboutagriculturalproduction5)thereispersonalcultivationonthepartofthe
tenantoragriculturallesseeand6)theharvestissharedbetweenlandownerandtenantoragricultural
[39]
lessee.

In this case, to prove that an agricultural tenancy relationship exists between the parties,
petitionerssubmittedasevidencetheaffidavitsofpetitionerLuciaandtheirneighbors.Inheraffidavit,
[40]
petitionerLuciadeclaredthatsheandherlatehusbandoccupiedthesubjectlandwiththeconsent
andpermissionoftheoriginalownersandthattheiragreementwasthatsheandherlatehusbandwould
cultivatethesubjectland,devoteittoagriculturalproduction,sharetheharvestwiththelandownerson
a 5050 basis, and at the same time watch over the land. Witness Alejandro Arias attested in his
[41]
affidavit
thatpetitionerLuciaandherhusband,Serapio,havebeencultivatingthesubjectlandsince
1960 that after the demise of Serapio, petitioner Lucia and her children continued to cultivate the
subject land and that when respondents predecessorsininterest were still alive, he would often see
[42]
themandrespondentgetsomeoftheharvest. Theaffidavit
of witness Conseso Muoz stated, in
essence,thatpetitionerLuciahasbeeninpeacefulpossessionandcultivationofthesubjectproperty
since1960andthattheharvestwasdividedintotwoparts,forthelandownerandforpetitionerLucia.

The statements in the affidavits presented by the petitioners are not sufficient to prove the
existenceofanagriculturaltenancy.

[43]
AscorrectlyfoundbytheCA,theelementofconsentislacking.
Exceptfortheselfserving
affidavitofLucia,nootherevidencewassubmittedtoshowthatrespondentspredecessorsininterest
consentedtoatenancyrelationshipwithpetitioners.Selfservingstatements,however,willnotsuffice
[44]
toproveconsentofthelandownerindependentevidenceisnecessary.

Aside from consent, petitioners also failed to prove sharing of harvest. The affidavits of
petitionersneighborsdeclaringthatrespondentandherpredecessorsininterestreceivedtheirsharein
theharvestarenotsufficient.Petitionersshouldhavepresentedreceiptsoranyotherevidencetoshow
[45]
thattherewassharingofharvest
andthattherewasanagreedsystemofsharingbetweenthemand

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

6/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

[46]
thelandowners.

Aswehaveoftensaid,mereoccupationorcultivationofanagriculturallandwillnotipsofacto
[47]
makethetilleranagriculturaltenant.
Itisincumbentuponapersonwhoclaimstobeanagricultural
[48]
tenanttoprovebysubstantialevidencealltherequisitesofagriculturaltenancy.

Intheinstantcase,petitionersfailedtoproveconsentandsharingofharvestbetweentheparties.
Consequently,theirdefenseofagriculturaltenancymustfail.TheMTChasjurisdictionovertheinstant
case. No error can therefore be attributed to the CA in reversing and setting aside the dismissal of
respondentscomplaintforlackofjurisdiction.Accordingly,theremandofthecasetotheMTCforthe
determinationoftheamountofdamagesduerespondentisproper.

Respondent is entitled to the fair rental value or the

reasonablecompensationfortheuseandoccupationofthe
subjectland.

Wemust,however,clarifythattheonlydamagethatcanberecovered[byrespondent]isthefair
rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the leased property. The
reasonforthisisthat[inforcibleentryorunlawfuldetainercases],theonlyissueraisedinejectment
casesisthatofrightfulpossessionhence,thedamageswhichcouldberecoveredarethosewhichthe
[respondent] could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and
occupationoftheproperty,andnotthedamageswhich[she]mayhavesufferedbutwhichhaveno
[49]
directrelationto[her]lossofmaterialpossession.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 24, 2005 Decision and the
February20,2006ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.86599areAFFIRMED.
ThiscaseisorderedREMANDEDtotheMunicipalTrialCourtofDalaguete,Cebu,todeterminethe
amountofdamagessufferedbyrespondentbyreasonoftherefusalandfailureofpetitionerstoturn
overthepossessionofthesubjectland,withutmostdispatchconsistentwiththeabovedisquisition.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

7/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.3134,withAnnexesAtoRinclusive.
[2]
Id.at2332pennedbyAssociateJusticeIsaiasP.DicdicanandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesVicenteL.YapandEnricoA.Lanzanas.
[3]
Id.at4041.
[4]
Id.at148.IntheMay2,2006Resolution(id.at136),theCourtdismissedthepetitionforcertiorariforbeingawrongmodeof
appealthepetitionwasevidentlyusedasasubstituteforthelostremedyofappealandforfailuretosufficientlyshowthatthe
CourtofAppealscommittedgraveabuseofdiscretioninrenderingtheassailedDecisionandResolution.Petitionersmovedfor
reconsiderationwhichwasgrantedintheAugust30,2006Resolution.Wethusreinstatedthepetitionandtreatthesameasa
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

8/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

petitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[5]
Id.at4252.
[6]
Id.at24.
[7]
Id.at47.
[8]
Id.at42.
[9]
Id.at43.
[10]
Id.at4344.
[11]
Id.at5359.
[12]
Id.at54.
[13]
Id.at5657.
[14]
Id.at6061.
[15]
Id.at8184pennedbyPresidingJudgeThelmaN.DeLosSantos.
[16]
Id.at84.
[17]
Id.at27.
[18]
Id.at99pennedbyJudgeMaximoA.Perez.
[19]
Id.at100102.
[20]
Id.at103104.
[21]
Id.at104.
[22]
Records,pp.145148.
[23]
CArollo,p.66.
[24]
Rollo,pp.105117.
[25]
Id.at29.
[26]
Id.at2930.
[27]
Id.at30.
[28]
Id.at3031.
[29]
Id.at31.
[30]
Id.
[31]
Id.at10.
[32]
SECTION 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by
operation of law in accordance with Section four of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly.
[33]
Rollo,p.178.
[34]
Id.at178179.
[35]
Id.at180183.
[36]
Id.at181.
[37]
Id.at193.
[38]
Id.at192.
[39]
Solimanv.PampangaSugarDevelopmentCompany(PASUDECO),Inc.,G.R.No.169589,June16,2009,589SCRA236,246.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

9/10

7/24/2016

G.R.No.171972

[40]
Rollo,pp.7576.
[41]
Id.at7980.
[42]
Id.at7778.
[43]
Id.at29.
[44]
DeJesusv.MoldexRealty,Inc.,G.R.No.153595,November23,2007,538SCRA316,322.
[45]
Landichov.Sia,G.R.No.169472,January20,2009,576SCRA602,621Adrianov.Tanco,G.R.No.168164,July5,2010,623
SCRA218,229.
[46]
HeirsofJoseBarredov.Besaes,G.R.No.164695,December13,2010,citingDeJesusv.MoldexRealty,Inc.,supraat323.
[47]
Landichov.Sia,supraat620.
[48]
NICORPManagementandDevelopmentCorporationv.DeLeon,G.R.Nos.176942&177125,August28,2008,563SCRA
606,612.
[49]
Araosv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.107057,June2,1994,232SCRA770,776.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/171972.htm

10/10