THIRD DIVISION
|
WELFREDO CENEZE, Petitioner, - versus - FELICIANA RAMOS, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 172287
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: January 15, 2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1]
dated December 29, 2005 and Resolution[2]
dated April 7, 2006, which dismissed petitioner’s complaint before the
Provincial Adjudicator.
Petitioner Welfredo Ceneze[3]
filed an action for declaration as bona
fide tenant-lessee of two parcels of agricultural land owned by respondent
Feliciana Ramos. The two lots are located in Lelemaan, Manaoag, Pangasinan,
with an aggregate area of 12,000 square meters. Petitioner alleged that in 1981, Julian
Ceneze, Sr. (Julian, Sr.), petitioner’s father, transferred his tenurial rights
over the landholding to him with the consent and approval of respondent and
that, since then, petitioner had been in actual and peaceful possession of the
landholding until April 12, 1991, when respondent forcibly entered and cultivated
the land for the purpose of dispossessing petitioner of his right as tenant.
The complaint prayed that judgment be rendered declaring petitioner as the bona fide tenant-lessee of the
landholding.[4]
In her defense, respondent denied
that a tenancy relationship existed between her and petitioner, asserting that she
had never instituted petitioner as a tenant in any of her landholdings. She
averred that petitioner had never been in possession of the landholding, but
admitted that it was Julian, Sr. who was the tenant of the landholding. When
Julian, Sr. migrated to the United States of America (USA) in 1985, respondent
allowed Julian, Sr.’s wife to cultivate the land, but she herself migrated to the
On December 19, 1997, the Provincial
Adjudicator rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion
of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
rendered declaring Complainant WILFREDO SENEZE (sic) as bona fide tenant of the
subject landholding.
Order is hereby given to Respondent to
maintain Complainant in peaceful possession and cultivation of said parcel of
land.
SO ORDERED.[6]
In finding that petitioner is a bona fide tenant-lessee of the
landholding, the Provincial Adjudicator relied on the following documents: (a) Certification
issued by Perfecto Dacasin, Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairman
of Barangay Lelemaan, Manaoag, Pangasinan, that petitioner is a bona fide tenant of the subject landholding
and that he was ejected from it sometime in April 1991; (b) Affidavit executed
by Julian, Sr., stating that, with respondent’s consent and approval, he
transferred his tenurial rights to petitioner before he migrated to the United
States in 1981; and (c) Joint Affidavit of Epifanio Castillo, Romulo Camesario
and Maximo Caquin, tenants of adjacent landholdings, attesting that petitioner
was a tenant of the landholding since 1988, and that they helped in harvesting palay products and delivering to
respondent her share in the harvest.
On April 21, 2004, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the decision.[7]
Respondent elevated the case to the
CA through a petition for review. On December 29, 2005, the CA resolved the
petition in favor of respondent landowner and dismissed petitioner’s complaint,
thus:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and another rendered dismissing Wilfredo Seneze’s complaint before the
Provincial Adjudicator.
SO ORDERED.[8]
In
a Resolution dated April 7, 2006, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.[9]
Petitioner
filed this petition for review, alleging that the CA decided the case not in
accord with existing law and jurisprudence when it held that petitioner failed
to establish that he had a tenancy relationship with respondent.[10]
The petition is not
meritorious.
In resolving this
petition, the Court is guided by the principle that tenancy is not purely a
factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land; it
is also a legal relationship.[11]
A tenancy relationship
cannot be presumed. There must be evidence to prove the presence of all
its indispensable elements, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner;
(4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation;
and (6) there is sharing of the harvest.[12]
The absence of one element does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, its
cultivator or planter, a de jure
tenant.[13]
To support his claim, petitioner
submitted a Certification issued by the BARC Chairman attesting that the former
is a tenant of the landholding, but such certification is not binding on this
Court. The certification or findings of
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (or of an authorized representative)
concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the
contending parties are merely preliminary or provisional in character; hence,
such certification does not bind the judiciary.[14]
From our own assessment
of the evidence at hand, we find that petitioner failed to establish the
existence of a tenancy relationship between him and respondent. To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite
quantum of evidence is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15]
The Certification of the BARC Chairman
and the affidavits of Julian, Sr. and of the tenants of the adjacent
landholdings certainly do not suffice. By themselves, they do not show that the
elements of consent of the landowner and of sharing of harvests are present.
To establish consent, petitioner presented
the Affidavit executed by Julian, Sr. However,
the affidavit —which was not notarized— cannot be given credence considering
that it was not authenticated. It is
self-serving and unreliable. There should have been other corroborative evidence
showing that respondent consented to and approved of the transfer of tenurial
rights to petitioner.
The other tenants’ Joint Affidavit, likewise,
fails to prove that petitioner is a tenant, more particularly, that there was
personal cultivation and sharing of the harvest. In this affidavit, the affiants stated that they
“helped hand in hand with [petitioner] in harvesting and threshing our palay products and helped him in
delivering the share of [respondent] every year.” The affidavit is ambiguously worded,
considering that the affiants are also tenant-lessees of respondent and they
could be referring to their own harvest. Moreover, as noted by the CA, the
affiants’ averment that petitioner became a tenant of the landholding since
1988 runs counter to petitioner’s allegation that he became a tenant in 1981.
In any case, the fact alone of
working on a landholding does not give rise to a presumption of the existence
of agricultural tenancy. Substantial evidence requires more than a mere
scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established;
there must be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element
of sharing.[16] To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any
other evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are
inadequate. In this case, petitioner failed to present a receipt for
respondent’s share in the harvest, or any other solid evidence proving that
there was a sharing of harvest.
To recap, petitioner is not a de jure tenant entitled to security of
tenure. There being no tenancy relationship between the parties, the DARAB did
not have jurisdiction over the case. We, therefore, sustain the ruling of the
CA, dismissing petitioner’s complaint.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated December 29, 2005 and
Resolution dated April 7, 2006 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Sesinando E. Villon, concurring; rollo, pp. 58-64.
[2]
[3] Also spelled as “Cenese” and “Seneze.”
[4] Rollo, pp. 33-34.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Supra note 2.
[10] Rollo, p. 21.
[11] Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202, 210.
[12] Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 167748, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 366, 373-374.
[13] Reyes v. Joson, G.R. No. 143111, June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 365, 373.
[14] De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 316, 322.
[15] Deloso v. Marapao, G.R. No. 144244, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 585, 592.
[16] Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, supra note 11, at 214.