SECOND DIVISION
sPOUSES FRANCISCO G. G.R. No. 168438
TUAZON* and
RUTH A.
TUAZON, Present:
Petitioners,
PUNO,
J., Chairperson,
sandoval-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - **
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA, JJ.
vICENTE G. TUAZON Promulgated:
and
JOHN L. TUAZON,
Respondents. August 28, 2006
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
At bar
is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73617 dated July 28, 2004 and April 26,
2005, respectively, reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Naga
City, Branch 21, in Civil Case No. RTC 2000-0027. The trial court ruled that
the case involves tenancy over which it lacks jurisdiction. The appellate court
found that the issue is mere possession and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The instant case arose from a
Complaint for Recovery of Possession
and Damages filed by respondents Vicente G. Tuazon[1]
and John L. Tuazon against petitioner spouses
Francisco G. Tuazon and Ruth A. Tuazon.
Respondents alleged in their Complaint that they are the absolute owners of a
2.3119-hectare of land located at Gotob, San Agustin,
Canaman, Camarines Sur covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RP-298
(224241). They acquired the land by way
of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
Petitioners, in their Answer with
Counterclaim, pleaded tenancy as a special and affirmative defense. They
alleged that in 1986, before respondents purchased the subject property,
The trial court conducted a
preliminary hearing to receive evidence on petitioners’ defense of tenancy.
During the hearing, Ruth presented two certifications attesting that she is a
tenant of the subject land. One was issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office (MARO) of Canaman, Camarines Sur and the other by the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Council (BARC). Alex Tuazon also testified
that he regularly received twenty-five percent (25%) of the produce of the land
as landowner’s share after his mother’s death.
The trial court then ruled that the
case involves an agrarian dispute which is under the jurisdiction of the DARAB.
Thus, on
In a Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the appealed order of the
lower court, and remand Case No.
RTC’2000-0027 to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21,
SO
ORDERED.[5]
The appellate court held that tenancy
was not proved by the petitioners. Petitioners
moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied by the appellate court in
its assailed Resolution dated
I HOLDING THAT THE
II HOLDING THAT PETITIONER RUTH A. TUAZON
IS NOT A DULY INSTITUTED TENANT ON THE
We deny the petition.
To determine whether a case involves
a tenancy dispute, the following essential requisites must be present: 1. the
parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2. the subject matter is agricultural
land; 3. there is consent between the parties; 4. the purpose is agricultural
production; 5. there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, 6. there is
sharing of the harvests between the parties.[7]
Not
all of these requisites obtain in the case at bar.
First. Both parties have claimed ownership
over the disputed land.[8]
The evidence shows that petitioner Ruth filed a case for Forcible Entry in
Civil Case No. 832 against Jose Tuazon on
Petitioner Ruth explained why she and
Francisco filed the previous cases claiming to be the subject land’s owner but
her testimony is hardly enlightening, viz.:
Q In paragraph 3 of [Civil
Case No. 832] which I quote: “That plaintiff, you, is the owner and legal
possessor of ricelands situated at San Agustin,
Canaman, Camarines Sur[”]… in this Complaint[,] you confirmed that the subject
matter of this case which is also the same [property], [is] owned by you?
A It is owned by my husband. One (1)
hectare of this property is owned by my husband so we assumed we own the
property.
x x x
Q You filed the case on
A My husband is the owner of xxx one (1)
hectare, being the wife I can claim also.
Q You are claiming ownership over the
entire [property,] not only one (1) hectare
xxx I want you to explain [that] in [c]ourt[.]
A Because I am a tenant of the whole
[property] but the owner is my husband.[10]
Petitioners’ contention that their
previous claims of ownership over the subject property are immaterial and do
not negate the tenancy relationship defies logic. Tenancy is established
precisely when a landowner institutes a tenant to work on his property under
the terms and conditions of their tenurial arrangement. Petitioners cannot anomalously insist to be both
tenants and owners of the subject land.
Second. Petitioners failed to prove that
Rosa, the original owner of the subject property, installed Ruth as agricultural
tenant on the landholding.
Petitioners’ testimony regarding Ruth’s
status as a tenant was not corroborated by any credible evidence. Petitioners did not present any leasehold
contract or agreement between Ruth and Rosa.
Even the documentary evidence on
record – the respective certifications issued by the MARO and BARC officers – do
not constitute proof that petitioner Ruth is a tenant of the subject land.[11] It is settled that the findings of or
certifications issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or his authorized
representative in a given locality concerning the presence or absence of a
tenancy relationship between the contending parties are merely preliminary or
provisional, not binding upon the courts,[12] and
could be overturned by a showing of evidence to the contrary. The appellate
court correctly observed, viz.:
x
x x. In fact, we even entertain doubts about their
competence as evidence of tenancy status in the absence of further evidence
that the MARO and BARC officers who made the certification investigated Ruth’s
status and saw for themselves or knew for a fact that Ruth personally
cultivated the land and undertook the activities required from a tenant.[13]
The testimony of petitioner Ruth validates
the ruling of the appellate court that the officers who issued the
certification have no personal knowledge of the existence of tenancy relations
between her and Rosa, viz.:
Q. So, you registered at the
office of the DAR, Canaman, Camarines Sur, presenting yourself before the DAR
personally as the tenant over the subject property?
x x x
A. Yes,
Sir.
Q. And you did not submit any paper to
prove tenancy over the subject property?
A. No, Sir.[14]
Q. During the first time that you went to
the office of the DAR, what requirement, if any, was asked from you before you
were registered as tenant?
x x x
A. There was a form from the DAR which was
given to me to be filled [out] and I filled it [out].
Q. How many documents are those (sic)?
A. I think, one or two pages.
Q. And after you filled [out] that form,
what else happened?
A. I was registered as tenant.
Q. Likewise, in the office of the BARC
Chairman, before the certification was issued to you, what did the BARC
Chairman require you to do?
x x x
A. The only requirement is that, he knows
me personally.
Q. How did the BARC Chairman know you?
A. Because he is living near us.[15]
Third. Petitioners also failed to prove
that petitioner Ruth shared the produce of the subject land with
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 73617 dated
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
(on leave)
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
* Also spelled as Tuason in some parts of the records.
** On leave.
[1] Vicente G. Tuazon
passed away during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his wife,
Elsa H. Tuazon, and their son, John L. Tuazon.
[2] Original Records (OR), 7-15.
[3] OR, 2.
[4]
[5] CA Decision, 12; rollo, 66.
[6] Petition for Review on Certiorari,
6;
[7] Verde v. Macapagal,
G.R. No. 151342,
[8] CA Decision, 8; rollo, 62.
[9] Ibid.
[10] See TSN, Ruth Tuazon,
[11] See CA Decision, 10; rollo, 64.
[12] Oarde,
et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 104774-75,
[13] CA Decision, 11; rollo, 65.
[14] TSN, Ruth Tuazon,
[15] TSN, Ruth Tuazon,
[16] TSN, Alex Tuazon,