(my own) Gelos vs CA

Facts: Gelos came into an agreement to work for respondent Alzona on 1970 for a daily wage of
php5.00 On 1973 Alzona wrote to Gelos to vacate the property, Gelos refused and continued to
work on said property.
This case was first heard by RTC and found Gelos to be a tenant of said property and should
remain thereof. This decision was then reversed by the Court of Appeals which did not found
Gelos to be a tenant.
Issue: Is Gelos a tenant or employee of Alzona?
Held: Gelos is an employee. There was an agreement made between Gelos and Alzona which
clearly stipulates that Gelos is an employee, not a tenant-This was contested by Gelos on the
grounds that he was illiterate and did not understand when he signed the agreement. Evidence
given to the court proved otherwise such as the inconsistent testimony of Gelos on the matter
and a notary who explained the agreement to Gelos.
Other contention of Gelos include receipts for fertilizer to support his tenancy argument but was
struck down because the fertilizer could have been used in other lands of which Gelos was a
tenant to.
There was also no evidence, except the corroboration of Gelos wife, of ever sharing the harvest
between himself and Alzona which is vital to prove a landlord and tenancy arrangement. An
agricultural worker earns whether or not the employer makes a profit whereas a tenants income
is dependent upon the produce he harvests.

(http://tomorrowslegalcounsels.blogspot.com/2014/09/agricultural-leasehold.html) Gelos vs.

Court of Appeals
208 SCRA 608 (1992)
Facts:
Rafael Gelos was employed by Ernesto Alzona and his parents as their laborer on a 25,000-sq. m
farmland. They executed a written contract which stipulated that as hired laborer Gelos would
receive a daily wage of P5.00. Three (3) years later, Gelos was informed of the termination of his
services and was asked to vacate the property. Gelos refused and continued working on the land.
Alzona filed a complaint for illegal detainer. The lower court found Gelos as tenant of the
property and entitled to remain thereon as such. The decision was reversed by the Court of
Appeals. DHACES
Issue:
What is the nature of the contract between Gelos and Alzona?
Held:
The parties entered into a contract of employment, not a tenancy agreement. The agreement is
a lease of services, not of the land in dispute. . . . The petitioner would disavow the agreement,
but his protestations are less than convincing. His wife's testimony that he is illiterate is belied by
his own testimony to the contrary in another proceeding. Her claim that they were tricked into
signing the agreement does not stand up against the testimony of Atty. Santos Pampolina, who
declared under his oath as a witness (and as an attorney and officer of the court) that he
explained the meaning of the document to Gelos, who even read it himself before signing it. . . .
Gelos points to the specific tasks mentioned in the agreement and suggests that they are the
work of a tenant and not of a mere hired laborer. Not so. The work specified is not peculiar to
tenancy. What a tenant may do may also be done by a hired laborer working under the direction
of the landowner, as in the case at bar. It is not the nature of the work involved but the intention
of the parties that determines the relationship between them. As this Court has stressed in a
number of cases, "tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged
tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the
understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their written agreements,
provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important."