COURT OF APPEALS

Manila

Republic of the Philippines

TENTH DIVISION
IMELDA C. BRAVO, Petitioner,

CA-G.R. SP No. 118054

Members:

- versus -

LAMPAS PERALTA, F.,

Chairperson,

ACOSTA, F. P., and GACUTAN, A. A., JJ.:

ELMAR T. CANOZA, Respondent. Promulgated: JANUARY 31, 2013
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
ACOSTA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Resolution issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated 17 January 2011, which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of DARAB's Decision dated 19 February 2010.

THE ANTECEDENTS
The antecedent facts, as culled from the records, are as follows: This case involves an agricultural land with an area of 23,854 square meters located at Brgy. San Alejandro, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, originally covered by Emancipation Patent (EP) No. 691779 and registered as Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20512
1

Rollo at pp. 3-16, with Annexes.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 2 of 8

in the name of Villaflor G. Cachila (Villaflor) on 15 December 1994.2 Sometime in 2003, Villaflor subdivided and donated said property, through a Deed of Donation, among her six (6) children, one of whom is herein petitioner.3 Individual Emancipation Patents were then issued to said heirs.4 Thereafter, petitioner and defendant's father, Gregorio Canoza, Sr. (Gregorio) entered into an agreement whereby the latter was instituted as a tenant over the said property and where both have agreed to a proportionate sharing of harvest.5 The controversy ignited when the petitioner discovered that Gregorio left for America, thus, leaving his son to continue with the tenancy without her prior consent.6 Petitioner argued that this constituted abandonment, which resulted to the severance of tenancy relations.7 Petitioner further alleged that while the defendant assumed all tenurial obligations of his father, he also violated the same when he continuously employed sub-lessees and charging the payment of their services from the harvest.8 Also, petitioner alleged that defendant and his father had, more often than not, failed to notify her about the dates of harvest/threshing of corn.9 Aggrieved, thus, by the defendant's alleged continuous violations of the agrarian laws, petitioner instituted the Complaint before the DARAB.10 Respondent, in his Answer, denied all the allegations against him.11 On 14 April 2008, DARAB's Provincial Adjudicator promulgated its Decision12 providing for the status quo between the parties based on the principle of pari delicto ratiocinating that the petitioner herself violated the agrarian laws as well. The Board ruled that the petitioner's act of instituting tenants over the subject property violated the express stipulation on their Emancipation
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DARAB Decision, February 19, 2010, Rollo at pp. 22-27. Id. Id. Rollo at p. 55. Supra, Note 2. Complaint, Rollo at pp. 28-34. Id. Id. Id. Supra, Note 2. Rollo at pp. 77-83.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 3 of 8

Patent, to wit, that the grantee shall not at anytime employ tenants in the cultivation of the land. It disposed, thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant suit is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED."13

Petitioner then filed her Motion for Reconsideration, which was granted by the Board in its 20 March 2009 Resolution,14 thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and the DECISION dated April 14, 2008 is hereby SET ASIDE. A NEW JUDGMENT is hereby entered as follows: 1. DECLARING the tenancy relations of the parties as null and void for being contrary to law; 2. ORDERING the respondent to immediately vacate and surrender the subject landholding to the complainants and for him to cease and desist from disturbing the peaceful possession of the complainants; 3. STERNLY WARNING the complainants from committing the same act in the future which will merit a harsher penalty; 4. No pronouncement as to cost."15

On 14 April 2009, respondent filed his Notice of Appeal assailing the said Resolution. Meanwhile, on 17 April 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution,16 which was held in abeyance as the respondent's Appeal was already given due course by the Board. On 19 February 2010, the DARAB rendered its Decision,17 reversing the above-quoted 20 March 2009 Resolution, thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Resolution is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one issued:
13 14 15 16 17

Id. Rollo at pp. 84-85. Id. Rollo at pp. 87-88. Supra, Note 2.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 4 of 8

1.

DISMISSING the complaint for lack of merit; relationship

2. RECOGNIZING the tenancy established between the parties; and

3. MAINTAINING respondent-appellant as tenant over the subject landholdings. SO ORDERED."18

Undaunted by another setback, the petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration of said Decision, which was denied by the DARAB in its 17 January 2011 Resolution, thus: "WHEREFORE, the instant Motion Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."19 Hence, this Petition interposing the following errors, to wit:
I THE HONORABLE BOARD MADE A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT ACTED FAVORABLY ON RESPONDENT'S APPEAL MEMORANDUM THAT IS UNDATED, INCOMPLETE, AND UNNOTARIZED. II THE HONORABLE BOARD OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY NO NEW EVIDENCES(sic) PRESENTED BY RESPONDENT. III THE HONORABLE BOARD MISAPPRECIATED ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY PETITIONER.20

for

The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a tenancy relationship was established between the petitioner and the respondent. We answer to the negative. Jurisprudence states that the essential requisites of tenancy are as follows: (a) The parties are the landowner and the tenant
18 19 20

Id. Rollo at pp. 18-19. Supra, Note 1.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 5 of 8

or agricultural lessee; (b) The subject of the relationship is agricultural land; (c) There is mutual consent to the tenancy between the parties; (d) The purpose of the relationship is agricultural production; (e) There is personal cultivation by the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (f) There is a sharing of harvests between the parties.21 Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land.22 The existence of such relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure.23 In this case, the tenancy relationship between the petitioner and the defendant's father, Gregorio, is undisputed as they, admittedly, had a tenancy agreement in writing.24 However, it is also an undisputed fact, as can be gleaned from the Board's findings and the defendant's allegations, that Gregorio left for the States, albeit, its exact date was disputed.25 Notably, it is not Gregorio, but his son, the respondent, who is pursuing the rights in the subject landholding. Thus, the petitioner correctly argued that such act constituted an abandonment of their tenancy agreement. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3844, An Act to Ordain the Agricultural Land Reform Code and to Institute Land Reforms in the Philippines, Including the Abolition of Tenancy and the Channeling of Capital into Industry, Provide for the Necessary Implementing Agencies, Appropriate Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, provides that the abandonment of the landholding by the agricultural lessee or the so-called tenant without knowledge of the agricultural lessor/landowner results to the extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold relation or the tenancy relationship. Unlike in cases of death or incapacity of the parties wherein the
21

22

23 24 25

Isidra Vda. de Victoria, substituted by Mario Victoria vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Hon. Juanita T. Guerrero, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Calamba, Laguna, Hon. Florencio P. Bueser, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Calauan, Laguna, Ex-Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna and/or his Deputies, Spouses Luis Gibe and Zenaida Gibe and all persons acting on their behalf, G.R. No. 147550, August 16, 2005. Vicente Adriano vs. Alice Tanco, Geraldine Tanco, Ronald Tanco, and Patrick Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010. Id. Supra, Note 5. Supra, Note 2.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 6 of 8

law provides that the leasehold shall continue,26 the law expressly provides that same shall be extinguished in case of abandonment.27 Hence, without the petitioner's consent or a new agreement between the petitioner and the defendant, as the records are barren of any proof to such effect, the latter cannot just continue the tenancy relationship despite him being the original tenant's son. A tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the landowner.28 There being supposedly a legal relationship, the intent of the parties and their agreement are important.29 From the foregoing, it can readily be seen that the essential element of consent is missing in this case. No proof was presented to establish that the petitioner recognized the defendant as a legitimate tenant. The defendant's bare allegations that he has continuously cultivated and openly occupied it without objection from the petitioner deserve scant consideration as these are mere self-serving statements, which fall short of an evidence to establish the presence of consent. These cannot suffice because independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove consent of the landowner.30 Moreover, the essential element of sharing harvests is lacking. Again, independent and concrete evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that there was indeed a sharing of the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. It bears stressing that self-serving statements are not sufficient. Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller into an agricultural tenant recognized under agragrian laws.31 It is important that, together with the other requisites of tenancy relationship above-stated, the agricultural tenant must prove that he transmitted the landowner's share of the harvest.32 Nothing is well-settled than the evidentiary rule that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof.33
26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33

Section 9, R.A. No. 3844. Section 8, R.A. No. 3844. Eugenio Mabagos vs. Orlando Maningas, Herman Maningas and Edwin Maningas, represented by Mariano Serrano as their Attorney-in-fact, G.R. No. 168252, July 28, 2008. Id. Supra, Note 22. Id. Id. Id.

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 7 of 8

Thus, in this case, the defendant has the burden of proving his affirmative allegation of tenancy, which he failed to do.

ACCORDINGLY, from the foregoing, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated 17 January 2011 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. DARAB-Pangasinan's Provincial Adjudicator's Resolution dated 20 March 2009 rendered in favor of the Petitioner STANDS.
SO ORDERED.

FRANCISCO P. ACOSTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA Associate Justice

ANGELITA A. GACUTAN
Associate Justice

DECISION / CA-G.R. SP No. 118054 ..................................... page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

FERNANDA LAMPAS PERALTA

Associate Justice

Chairperson, Tenth Division