FIRST DIVISION
|
JUAN GALOPE,
Petitioner, - versus - CRESENCIA BUGARIN, Represented by CELSO RABANG, Respondent. |
|
G.R.
No. 185669 Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: February 1, 2012 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Petitioner Juan Galope appeals the Decision[1]
dated
The facts and antecedent proceedings
are as follows:
Respondent owns a parcel of land
located in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. NT-229582.[3] Petitioner farms the land.[4]
In Barangay
Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the land to petitioner in
1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from petitioner is
insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her
own. Petitioner countered that respondent
cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time and that
he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was not settled.[5]
Represented by Celso Rabang,
respondent filed a petition for recovery of possession, ejectment and payment
of rentals before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),
docketed as DARAB Case No. 9378. Rabang
claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter
gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the
use of the land. Rabang also claimed
that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the
land.[6]
After due proceedings, the Provincial
Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant
entitled to security of tenure. The
Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the tenancy relationship between
petitioner and respondent. The
Adjudicator noted the certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
that petitioner is the registered farmer of the land; that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the tenant of the land;
that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioners possession and cultivation of the
land; that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as farm helper;
and that respondents own witness, Cesar Andres, said that petitioner is a
farmer of the land.[7]
On appeal, the DARAB disagreed with
the Adjudicator and ruled that petitioner is not a de jure tenant. The DARAB
ordered petitioner to pay rentals and vacate the land, and the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer to assist in computing the rentals.
The DARAB found no tenancy
relationship between the parties and stressed that the elements of consent and
sharing are not present. The DARAB noted
petitioners failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts,
and said that the affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz
are self-serving and are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment
of rentals. The DARAB added that respondents
intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied tenancy for
such lending was without consideration.[8]
Petitioner
appealed, but the CA affirmed DARABs ruling that no tenancy relationship
exists; that the elements of consent and sharing are not present; that
respondents act of lending her land without consideration cannot be taken as
implied tenancy; and that no receipts prove petitioners payment of rentals.[9]
Aggrieved, petitioner filed the
instant petition. Petitioner alleges
that the CA erred
[I.]
x x x IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE DECISION OF THE DARAB AND IN FAILING TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER THAT HE IS INDEED A TENANT[;]
[II.]
x x x IN RELYING MAINLY ON THE ABSENCE OF RECEIPTS OF THE PAYMENTS OF LEASE RENTALS IN DECLARING THE ABSENCE OF CONSENT AND SHARING TO ESTABLISH A TENANCY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT[; AND]
[III.]
x x x WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER
HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN [OF] PROVING BY WAY OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HIS
ALLEGATIONS OF TENANCY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESPONDENT.[10]
The main issue to be resolved is whether
there exists a tenancy relationship between the parties.
Petitioner submits that substantial
evidence proves the tenancy relationship between him and respondent. Specifically, he points out that (1) his
possession of the land is undisputed; (2) the DAR certified that he is the
registered farmer of the land; and (3) receipts prove his payment of irrigation
fees. On the absence of receipts as
proof of rental payments, he urges us to take judicial notice of an alleged
practice in the provinces that payments between relatives are not supported by
receipts. He also calls our attention to
the affidavits of Jose Allingag, Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz attesting
that he pays 15 cavans of palay to
respondent.[11]
In her comment, respondent says that
no new issues and substantial matters are raised in the petition. She thus prays that we deny the petition for
lack of merit.[12]
We find the petition impressed with
merit and we hold that the CA and DARAB erred in ruling that there is no
tenancy relationship between the parties.
The essential elements of an agricultural
tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is 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 the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.[13]
The CA and DARAB ruling that there is
no sharing of harvest is based on the absence of receipts to show petitioners
payment of rentals. We are constrained
to reverse them on this point. The
matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondents admission that she
receives rentals from petitioner. To
recall, respondents complaint in Barangay
Case No. 99-6 was that the rental or the amount she receives from petitioner is
not much.[14] This
fact is evident on the record[15]
of said case which is signed by respondent and was even attached as Annex D
of her DARAB petition. Consequently, we
are thus unable to agree with DARABs ruling that the affidavits[16]
of witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the equivalent thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete
proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. Indeed, respondents admission confirms their
statement that rentals are in fact being paid. Such admission belies the claim of
respondents representative, Celso Rabang, that petitioner paid nothing for the
use of the land.
Contrary also to the CA and DARAB
pronouncement, respondents act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her
land and receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an
unwritten tenancy agreement. An
agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit provisions of
a written contract alone.[17] Section
5[18] of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844,
otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an
agricultural leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement.
Thus, all the elements of an
agricultural tenancy relationship are present.
Respondent is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their relationship is
agricultural land, a farm land.[19] They mutually agreed to the cultivation of
the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to
bring about agricultural production.
After the harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or
its equivalent in cash. Respondents
motion[20]
to supervise harvesting and threshing,
processes in palay farming, further confirms
the purpose of their agreement. Lastly,
petitioners personal cultivation of the land[21]
is conceded by respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they share in
the harvest.
Petitioners status as a de jure
tenant having been established, we now address the issue of whether there is a
valid ground to eject petitioner from the land.
Respondent, as landowner/agricultural
lessor, has the burden to prove the existence of a lawful cause for the
ejectment of petitioner, the tenant/agricultural lessee.[22] This rule proceeds from the principle that a
tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to a security of
tenure.[23] The tenant can only be ejected from the
agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law.[24]
Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 enumerates
these grounds, to wit:
SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections [25] and [34], except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advance notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossession;
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section [29];
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section [27].
Through Rabang, respondent alleged (1)
nonpayment of any consideration, (2) lack of tenancy relationship, (3)
petitioner mortgaged the land to Allingag who allegedly possesses the land, and
(4) she will manage/cultivate the land.[25] None of these grounds were proven by the
respondent.
As aforesaid, respondent herself
admitted petitioners payment of rentals.
We also found that a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.
On the supposed mortgage, Allingag
himself denied it in his affidavit.[26] No such a deed of mortgage was submitted in
evidence. Rabangs claim is based on a
hearsay statement of Cesar Andres that he came to know the mortgage from
residents of the place where the land is located.[27]
That
Allingag possesses the land is also based on Andress hearsay statement. On the contrary, Allingag stated in his
affidavit that he is merely petitioners farm helper.[28] We have held that the employment of farm
laborers to perform some aspects of work does not preclude the existence of an
agricultural leasehold relationship, provided that an agricultural lessee does
not leave the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Indeed, while the law explicitly requires the
agricultural lessee and his immediate family to work on the land, we have
nevertheless declared that the hiring of farm laborers by the tenant on a temporary,
occasional, or emergency basis does not negate the existence of the element of
personal cultivation essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold
relationship.[29] There is no showing that petitioner has left
the entire process of cultivating the land to Allingag. In fact, respondent has admitted that
petitioner still farms the land.[30]
On
respondents claim that she will cultivate the land, it is no longer a valid
ground to eject petitioner. The original
provision of Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844 has been removed from the statute
books[31]
after its amendment by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389[32]
on
SEC. 7. Section 36 (1) of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years.
Since respondent failed to prove
nonpayment of rentals, petitioner may not be ejected from the landholding. We emphasize, however, that as long as the
tenancy relationship subsists, petitioner must continue paying rentals. For the law provides that nonpayment of lease
rental, if proven, is a valid ground to dispossess him of respondents
land. Henceforth, petitioner should see
to it that his rental payments are properly covered by receipts.
Finally, the records show that
Allingag, petitioners co-respondent in DARAB Case No. 9378, did not join
petitioners appeal to the CA. If
Allingag did not file a separate appeal, the DARAB decision had become final as
to him. We cannot grant him any relief.
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the Decision dated
The petition filed by respondent
Cresencia Bugarin in DARAB Case No. 9378 is hereby DISMISSED insofar as
petitioner Juan Galope is concerned.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR: RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Chief Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 55-62. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with the concurrence of Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Jose Catral Mendoza (now a Member of this Court).
[2]
[3] Records, p. 7.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo, pp. 59-62.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Records, p. 9. Respondent said, Na siya ay tumatanggap ngunit kaunti lamang.
[15]
[16]
[17] Supra note 13, at 271.
[18] SEC. 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section [4] of this Code and, in other cases, either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly.
[19] Records, p. 20 (lupang sakahin).
[20]
[21]
[22] R.A. No. 3844, SEC. 37. Burden of Proof. The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.
[23] R.A. No. 3844, SEC. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.
[24] Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No.140796,
[25] Records, p. 3.
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Supra note 24, at 84-85.
[30] Supra note 21.
[31] See
Balatbat v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 36378,
[32] An Act Amending Republic Act Numbered [3844], as amended, Otherwise Known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, and for Other Purposes.