Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, |
|
G.R. No. 171972 |
|
Petitioners, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
- versus- |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
TERESITA V. SALVADOR, Respondent. |
|
Promulgated: June 8, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven
by the person alleging it.
This Petition
for Certiorari[1]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the August 24, 2005 Decision[2]
and the February 20, 2006 Resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 86599. However, per Resolution[4]
of this Court dated August 30, 2006, the instant petition shall be treated as a
Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the same Rules.
Factual Antecedents
On May 22, 2003,
respondent Teresita V. Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer,[5]
docketed as Civil Case No. 330, against petitioners Lucia (Lucia) and Prudencia
Rodriguez, mother and daughter, respectively before the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Dalaguete,
In their Answer,[11]
petitioners interposed the defense of agricultural tenancy. Lucia claimed that she and her deceased
husband, Serapio, entered the subject land with the consent and permission of
respondents predecessors-in-interest, siblings Cristino and Sana Salvador,
under the agreement that Lucia and Serapio would devote the property to
agricultural production and share the produce with the
On July 10,
2003, the preliminary conference was terminated and the parties were ordered to
submit their respective position papers together with the affidavits of their
witnesses and other evidence to support their respective claims.[14]
Ruling of the
Municipal Trial Court
On September 10,
2003, the MTC promulgated a Decision[15]
finding the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship between the
parties, and thereby, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Pertinent portions of the Decision read:
Based on the facts presented, it is established
that defendant Lucia Rodriguez and her husband Serapio Rodriguez were
instituted as agricultural tenants on the lot in question by the original owner
who was the predecessor-in-interest of herein plaintiff Teresita Salvador. The consent given by [the]original owner to
constitute [defendants] as agricultural tenants of subject landholdings binds
plaintiff who as successor-in-interest of the original owner Cristino Salvador
steps into the latters shoes acquiring not only his rights but also his
obligations towards the herein defendants.
In the instant case, the consent to tenurial arrangement between the
parties is inferred from the fact that the plaintiff and her
successors-in-interest had received their share of the harvests of the property
in dispute from the defendants.
Moreover, dispossession of agricultural tenants
can only be ordered by the Court for causes expressly provided under Sec. 36 of
R.A. 3844. However, this Court has no jurisdiction over detainer case involving
agricultural tenants as ejectment and dispossession of said tenants is within
the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform and
Agricultural Board (DARAB). ([S]ee Sec. 1(1.4) DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure[.])
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant
complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO
ORDERED.[16]
Aggrieved,
respondent filed an appeal, docketed as Civil Case No. AV-1237, with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Argao,
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
On January 12,
2004, the RTC rendered a Decision[18]
remanding the case to
the MTC for
preliminary hearing to determine whether tenancy relationship exists between
the parties.
Petitioners moved
for reconsideration[19]
arguing that the purpose of a preliminary hearing was served by the parties
submission of their respective position papers and other supporting evidence.
On June 23, 2004,
the RTC granted the reconsideration and affirmed the MTC Decision dated
September 10, 2003. The fallo of the new Decision[20]
reads:
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is
GRANTED. The Decision dated September
10, 2003 of the Municipal Trial Court of Dalaguete,
IT IS SO
DECIDED.[21]
Respondent
sought reconsideration[22]
but it was denied by the RTC in an Order[23]
dated August 18, 2004.
Thus, respondent
filed a Petition for Review[24]
with the CA, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 86599.
Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
On August 24, 2005, the CA rendered judgment in favor of respondent. It ruled that no tenancy relationship exists
between the parties because petitioners failed to prove that respondent or her
predecessors-in-interest consented to the tenancy relationship.[25]
The CA likewise gave no probative value to the affidavits
of petitioners
witnesses as it found their statements insufficient to establish petitioners
status as agricultural tenants.[26] If at all, the affidavits merely showed that
petitioners occupied the subject land with the consent of the original owners.[27] And since petitioners are occupying the
subject land by mere tolerance, they are bound by an implied promise to vacate
the same upon demand by the respondent.[28] Failing to do so, petitioners are liable to
pay damages.[29] Thus, the CA disposed of the case in this
manner:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment
is hereby rendered by us SETTING ASIDE,
as we hereby set aside, the decision rendered by the RTC of Argao,
SO
ORDERED.[30]
Issues
Hence, this
petition raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER X X X THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
RULING THAT PETITIONERS-DEFENDANTS ARE NOT TENANTS OF THE
II.
WHETHER X X X SUCH RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
HAS FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS AND IS SUPPORTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.[31]
Petitioners
Arguments
Petitioners
contend that under Section 5[32]
of Republic Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
tenancy may be constituted by agreement of the parties either orally or in
writing, expressly or impliedly.[33]
In this case, there was an implied consent to constitute a tenancy relationship
as respondent and her predecessors-in-interest allowed petitioners to cultivate
the land and share the harvest with the landowners for more than 40 years.[34]
Petitioners
further argue that the CA erred in disregarding the affidavits executed by
their witnesses as these are sufficient to prove the existence of a tenancy
relationship.[35]
Petitioners claim that their witnesses had personal knowledge of the
cultivation and the sharing of harvest.[36]
Respondents
Arguments
Respondent, on the other hand,
maintains that petitioners are not agricultural tenants because mere
cultivation of an agricultural land does not make the tiller an agricultural
tenant.[37]
Respondent insists that her
predecessors-in-interest merely tolerated petitioners occupation of the
subject land.[38]
Our Ruling
The petition
lacks merit.
Agricultural tenancy relationship
does not exist in the instant case.
Agricultural
tenancy exists when all the following requisites are present: 1) the parties
are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter
of the relationship is an 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
landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.[39]
In this case, to
prove that an agricultural tenancy relationship exists between the parties,
petitioners submitted as evidence the affidavits of petitioner Lucia and their
neighbors. In her affidavit,[40]
petitioner Lucia declared that she and her late husband occupied the subject
land with the consent and permission of the original owners and that their
agreement was that she and her late husband would cultivate the subject land,
devote it to agricultural production, share the harvest with the landowners on
a 50-50 basis, and at the same time watch over the land. Witness Alejandro Arias attested in his
affidavit[41]
that petitioner Lucia and her husband, Serapio, have been cultivating the
subject land since 1960; that after the demise of Serapio, petitioner Lucia and
her children continued to cultivate the subject land; and that when
respondents predecessors-in-interest were still alive, he would often see them
and respondent get some of the harvest. The affidavit[42]
of witness Conseso Muoz stated, in essence, that petitioner Lucia has been in
peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject property since 1960 and that
the harvest was divided into two parts, for the landowner and for
petitioner Lucia.
The statements
in the affidavits presented by the petitioners are not sufficient to prove the
existence of an agricultural tenancy.
As correctly
found by the CA, the element of consent is lacking.[43]
Except for the self-serving affidavit of
Lucia, no other evidence was submitted to show that respondents
predecessors-in-interest consented to a tenancy relationship with
petitioners. Self-serving statements,
however, will not suffice to prove consent of the landowner; independent
evidence is necessary.[44]
Aside from
consent, petitioners also failed to prove sharing of harvest. The affidavits of petitioners neighbors
declaring that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest received their share
in the harvest are not sufficient.
Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to show
that there was sharing of harvest[45]
and that there was an agreed system of sharing between them and the landowners.[46]
As we have often
said, mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make the tiller an
agricultural tenant.[47] It is incumbent upon a person who claims to
be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the requisites
of agricultural tenancy.[48]
In the instant
case, petitioners failed to prove consent and sharing of harvest between the
parties. Consequently, their defense of
agricultural tenancy must fail. The MTC has jurisdiction over the instant case.
No error can therefore be attributed to the CA in reversing and setting aside
the dismissal of respondents complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the remand of the case to the
MTC for the determination of the amount of damages due respondent is proper.
Respondent is entitled to the
fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of
the subject land.
We must,
however, clarify that the only damage that can be recovered [by respondent] is
the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation
of the leased property. The reason for
this is that [in forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases], the only issue
raised in ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages
which could be recovered are those which the [respondent] could have sustained
as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of
the property, and not the damages which [she] may have suffered but which have
no direct relation to [her] loss of material possession.[49]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed August 24, 2005 Decision and the
February 20, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 86599
are AFFIRMED. This case is ordered REMANDED to the Municipal Trial Court
of Dalaguete,
SO
ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-134, with Annexes A to R inclusive.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Records, pp. 145-148.
[23] CA rollo, p. 66.
[24] Rollo, pp. 105-117.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[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]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), Inc., G.R. No. 169589, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 236, 246.
[40] Rollo, pp. 75-76.
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 316, 322.
[45] Landicho v. Sia, G.R. No. 169472, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 602, 621; Adriano v. Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 218, 229.
[46] Heirs of Jose Barredo v. Besaes, G.R. No. 164695, December 13, 2010, citing De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., supra at 323.
[47] Landicho v. Sia, supra at 620.
[48] NICORP Management and Development Corporation v. De Leon, G.R. Nos. 176942 & 177125, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 606, 612.
[49] Araos
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107057, June 2, 1994, 232 SCRA 770, 776.