Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

FIRSTDIVISION

JUANGALOPE,
Petitioner,

versus

G.R.No.185669

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,

Chairperson,

LEONARDODECASTRO,

BERSAMIN,

CRESENCIABUGARIN,

DELCASTILLO,and

Representedby

VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.

Promulgated:

Respondent.
February1,2012
xx
CELSORABANG,

DECISION

VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
[1]
Petitioner Juan Galope appeals the Decision dated September 26, 2008 and
[2]
Resolution dated December 12, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No.
97143. The CA ruled that there is no tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent
CresenciaBugarin.
Thefactsandantecedentproceedingsareasfollows:
RespondentownsaparceloflandlocatedinSto.Domingo,NuevaEcija,coveredbyTransfer
[3]
[4]
CertificateofTitleNo.NT229582. Petitionerfarmstheland.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

1/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

InBarangayCaseNo.996,respondentcomplainedthatshelentthelandtopetitionerin1992
withoutanagreement,thatwhatshereceivesinreturnfrompetitionerisinsignificant,andthat
shewantstorecoverthelandtofarmitonherown.Petitionercounteredthatrespondentcannot
recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging
[5]
fromP4,000toP6,000or15cavansofpalayperharvest.Thecasewasnotsettled.
RepresentedbyCelsoRabang,respondentfiledapetitionforrecoveryofpossession,ejectment
and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB),docketedasDARABCaseNo.9378.Rabangclaimedthatrespondentlenttheland
topetitionerin1991andthatthelattergavenothinginreturnasasignofgratitudeormonetary
considerationfortheuseoftheland.Rabangalsoclaimedthatpetitionermortgagedthelandto
[6]
JoseAllingagwhoallegedlypossessestheland.
Afterdueproceedings,theProvincialAdjudicatordismissedthepetitionandruledthatpetitioner
is a tenant entitled to security of tenure. TheAdjudicator said substantial evidence prove the
tenancyrelationshipbetweenpetitionerandrespondent.TheAdjudicatornotedthecertification
oftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)thatpetitioneristheregisteredfarmeroftheland
thatBarangayTanodssaidthatpetitioneristhetenantofthelandthatJoseAllingagaffirmed
petitionerspossessionandcultivationofthelandthatAllingagalsostatedthatpetitionerhired
himonlyasfarmhelperandthatrespondentsownwitness,CesarAndres,saidthatpetitioneris
[7]
afarmeroftheland.
Onappeal,theDARABdisagreedwiththeAdjudicatorandruledthatpetitionerisnotadejure
tenant. The DARAB ordered petitioner to pay rentals and vacate the land, and the Municipal
AgrarianReformOfficertoassistincomputingtherentals.
TheDARABfoundnotenancyrelationshipbetweenthepartiesandstressedthattheelementsof
consentandsharingarenotpresent.TheDARABnotedpetitionersfailuretoprovehispayment
of rentals by appropriate receipts, and said that the affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Alejo and
Angelito dela Cruz are selfserving and are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of
nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB added that respondents intention to lend her land to
[8]
petitionercannotbetakenasimpliedtenancyforsuchlendingwaswithoutconsideration.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

2/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

Petitioner appealed, but the CA affirmed DARABs ruling that no tenancy relationship exists
thattheelementsofconsentandsharingarenotpresentthatrespondentsactoflendingherland
withoutconsiderationcannotbetakenasimpliedtenancyandthatnoreceiptsprovepetitioners
[9]
paymentofrentals.
Aggrieved,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetition.PetitionerallegesthattheCAerred
[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
INDEEDATENANT[]

[II.]

x x x IN RELYING MAINLY ON THEABSENCE 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.]

xxxWHENITFOUNDTHATTHEPETITIONERHASNOTDISCHARGEDTHEBURDEN
[OF] PROVING BY WAY OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HIS ALLEGATIONS OF

[10]

TENANCYRELATIONSHIPWITHTHERESPONDENT.

Themainissuetoberesolvediswhetherthereexistsatenancyrelationshipbetweentheparties.
Petitioner submits that substantial evidence proves the tenancy relationship between him and
respondent.Specifically,hepointsoutthat(1)hispossessionofthelandisundisputed(2)the
DARcertifiedthatheistheregisteredfarmerofthelandand(3)receiptsprovehispaymentof
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
[11]
AlejoandAngelitodelaCruzattestingthathepays15cavansofpalaytorespondent.
In her comment, respondent says that no new issues and substantial matters are raised in the
[12]
petition.Shethuspraysthatwedenythepetitionforlackofmerit.
WefindthepetitionimpressedwithmeritandweholdthattheCAandDARABerredinruling
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

3/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

thatthereisnotenancyrelationshipbetweentheparties.
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
agriculturalland(3)thereisconsentbetweenthepartiestotherelationship(4)thepurposeof
therelationshipistobringaboutagriculturalproduction(5)thereispersonalcultivationonthe
partofthetenantoragriculturallesseeand(6)theharvestissharedbetweenthelandownerand
[13]
thetenantoragriculturallessee.
The CA and DARAB ruling that there is no sharing of harvest is based on the absence of
receiptstoshowpetitionerspaymentofrentals.Weareconstrainedtoreversethemonthispoint.
The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondents admission that she receives
rentalsfrompetitioner.Torecall,respondentscomplaintinBarangayCaseNo.996wasthatthe
[14]
rental or the amount she receives from petitioner is not much.
This fact is evident on the
[15]
record
ofsaidcasewhichissignedbyrespondentandwasevenattachedasAnnexDofher
DARAB petition. Consequently, we are thus unable to agree with DARABs ruling that the
[16]
affidavits
ofwitnessesthatpetitionerpays15cavansofpalayortheequivalentthereofin
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
nothingfortheuseoftheland.
ContraryalsototheCAandDARABpronouncement,respondentsactofallowingthepetitioner
tocultivateherlandandreceivingrentalsthereforindubitablyshowherconsenttoanunwritten
tenancy agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit
[17]
[18]
provisions of a written contract alone.
Section 5
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844,
otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural
leaseholdrelationmayexistuponanoralagreement.
Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Respondent is the
landownerpetitionerishertenant.Thesubjectmatteroftheirrelationshipisagriculturalland,a
[19]
farmland.
Theymutuallyagreedtothecultivationofthelandbypetitionerandshareinthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

4/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

harvest.Thepurposeoftheirrelationshipisclearlytobringaboutagriculturalproduction.After
the harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondents
[20]
motion
tosuperviseharvestingandthreshing,processesinpalayfarming,furtherconfirms
[21]
the purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioners personal cultivation of the land
is
concededbyrespondentwholikewiseneverdeniedthefactthattheyshareintheharvest.
Petitioners status as a de jure tenant having been established, we now address the issue of
whetherthereisavalidgroundtoejectpetitionerfromtheland.
Respondent,aslandowner/agriculturallessor,hastheburdentoprovetheexistenceofalawful
[22]
causefortheejectmentofpetitioner,thetenant/agriculturallessee.
Thisruleproceedsfrom
the principle that a tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to a security of
[23]
tenure.
The tenant can only be ejected from the agricultural landholding on grounds
[24]
providedbylaw.
Section36ofR.A.No.3844enumeratesthesegrounds,towit:
SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding Exceptions. Notwithstanding any agreement as to the
periodorfuturesurrenderoftheland,anagriculturallesseeshallcontinueintheenjoymentand
possessionofhislandholdingexceptwhenhisdispossessionhasbeenauthorizedbytheCourtin
ajudgmentthatisfinalandexecutoryifafterduehearingitisshownthat:
(1)Theagriculturallessorowneroramemberofhisimmediatefamilywillpersonallycultivate
the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory,
hospitalorschoolsiteorotherusefulnonagriculturalpurposes:ProvidedThattheagricultural
lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his
landholdinginadditiontohisrightsunderSections[25]and[34],exceptwhenthelandowned
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
shouldthelandholdernotcultivatethelandhimselfforthreeyearsorfailtosubstantiallycarry
out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed
thatheactedinbadfaithandthetenantshallhavetherighttodemandpossessionofthelandand
recoverdamagesforanylossincurredbyhimbecauseofsaiddispossession
(2)Theagriculturallesseefailedtosubstantiallycomplywithanyofthetermsandconditionsof
thecontractoranyoftheprovisionsofthisCodeunlesshisfailureiscausedbyfortuitousevent
orforcemajeure
(3)Theagriculturallesseeplantedcropsorusedthelandholdingforapurposeotherthanwhat
hadbeenpreviouslyagreedupon
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

5/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

(4)Theagriculturallesseefailedtoadoptprovenfarmpracticesasdeterminedunderparagraph3
ofSection[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)Theagriculturallesseedoesnotpaytheleaserentalwhenitfallsdue:Provided,Thatifthe
nonpaymentoftherentalshallbeduetocropfailuretotheextentofseventyfivepercentumas
aresultofafortuitousevent,thenonpaymentshallnotbeagroundfordispossession,although
theobligationtopaytherentalduethatparticularcropisnottherebyextinguishedor
(7)Thelesseeemployedasublesseeonhislandholdinginviolationofthetermsofparagraph2
ofSection[27].

ThroughRabang,respondentalleged(1)nonpaymentofanyconsideration,(2)lackoftenancy
relationship,(3)petitionermortgagedthelandtoAllingagwhoallegedlypossessestheland,and
[25]
(4) she will manage/cultivate the land.
None of these grounds were proven by the
respondent.
Asaforesaid,respondentherselfadmittedpetitionerspaymentofrentals.We also found that a
tenancyrelationshipexistsbetweentheparties.
[26]
On the supposed mortgage, Allingag himself denied it in his affidavit.
No such a deed of
mortgagewassubmittedinevidence.Rabangs claim is based on a hearsay statement of Cesar
Andresthathecametoknowthemortgagefromresidentsoftheplacewherethelandislocated.
[27]
ThatAllingagpossessesthelandisalsobasedonAndresshearsaystatement.On the contrary,
[28]
Allingagstatedinhisaffidavitthatheismerelypetitionersfarmhelper.
Wehaveheldthat
the employment of farm laborers to perform some aspects of work does not preclude the
existenceofanagriculturalleaseholdrelationship,providedthatanagriculturallesseedoesnot
leave the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Indeed, while the law
explicitlyrequirestheagriculturallesseeandhisimmediatefamilytoworkontheland,wehave
neverthelessdeclaredthatthehiringoffarmlaborersbythetenantonatemporary,occasional,
oremergencybasisdoesnotnegatetheexistenceoftheelementofpersonalcultivationessential
[29]
inatenancyoragriculturalleaseholdrelationship.
There is no showing that petitioner has
lefttheentireprocessofcultivatingthelandtoAllingag.Infact,respondenthasadmittedthat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

6/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

[30]
petitionerstillfarmstheland.
On respondents claim that she will cultivate the land, it is no longer a valid ground to eject
petitioner.TheoriginalprovisionofSection36(1)ofR.A.No.3844hasbeenremovedfromthe
[31]
[32]
statute books
after its amendment by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389
on September 10,
1971,towit:
SEC.7.Section36(1)ofthesameCodeisherebyamendedtoreadasfollows:
(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
equivalenttofivetimestheaverageofthegrossharvestsonhislandholdingduringthelastfive
precedingcalendaryears.

Sincerespondentfailedtoprovenonpaymentofrentals,petitionermaynotbeejectedfromthe
landholding.Weemphasize,however,thataslongasthetenancyrelationshipsubsists,petitioner
mustcontinuepayingrentals.Forthelawprovidesthatnonpaymentofleaserental,ifproven,is
avalidgroundtodispossesshimofrespondentsland.Henceforth,petitionershouldseetoitthat
hisrentalpaymentsareproperlycoveredbyreceipts.
Finally, the records show thatAllingag, petitioners corespondent in DARAB Case No. 9378,
didnotjoinpetitionersappealtotheCA.IfAllingagdidnotfileaseparateappeal,theDARAB
decisionhadbecomefinalastohim.Wecannotgranthimanyrelief.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and REVERSE the Decision dated September 26,
2008 and Resolution dated December 12, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No.
97143.
The petition filed by respondent Cresencia Bugarin in DARAB Case No. 9378 is hereby
DISMISSEDinsofaraspetitionerJuanGalopeisconcerned.
Nopronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

7/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitution,Icertifythattheconclusionsinthe
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.5562.PennedbyAssociateJusticeSesinandoE.VillonwiththeconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesAndresB.Reyes,Jr.
andJoseCatralMendoza(nowaMemberofthisCourt).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

8/9

7/24/2016

G.R.No.185669

[2]
Id.at71.
[3]
Records,p.7.
[4]
Id.at9.
[5]
Id.at911.
[6]
Id.at25.
[7]
Id.at9798.
[8]
Id.at141143.
[9]
Rollo,pp.5962.
[10]
Id.at16.
[11]
Id.at1720.
[12]
Id.at79.
[13]
Granadav.Bormaheco,Inc.,G.R.No.154481,July27,2007,528SCRA259,268.
[14]
Records,p.9.Respondentsaid,Nasiyaaytumatanggapngunitkauntilamang.
[15]
Id.at911.
[16]
Id.at4849.
[17]
Supranote13,at271.
[18]
SEC.5.EstablishmentofAgriculturalLeaseholdRelationTheagriculturalleaseholdrelationshallbeestablishedbyoperation
oflawinaccordancewithSection[4]ofthisCodeand,inothercases,eitherorallyorinwriting,expresslyorimpliedly.
[19]
Records,p.20(lupangsakahin).
[20]
Id.at6768.
[21]
Id.at9.Respondentsaid,kasalukuyanaysinasakaniJuanGalope.
[22]
R.A.No.3844,SEC.37.BurdenofProof.Theburdenofprooftoshowtheexistenceofalawfulcausefortheejectmentofan
agriculturallesseeshallrestupontheagriculturallessor.
[23]
R.A.No.3844,SEC.7.TenureofAgriculturalLeaseholdRelation.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.Theagriculturallesseeshallbeentitledtosecurityoftenureonhislandholdingandcannotbeejectedtherefrom
unlessauthorizedbytheCourtforcauseshereinprovided.
[24]
PerezRosariov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.140796,June30,2006,494SCRA66,82.
[25]
Records,p.3.
[26]
Id.at48.
[27]
Id.at8.Andressaid,NaakingnapagalamannaangkanyangsinasakangitoaykanyangnaisanlakayJoseAllingagnasiya
ngayon ang makikita at lihitimong nagsasaka sa nasabing lupang sakahin Na ito ay aking napagalaman mula pa noong
taong1997,sadahilangakoaymadalassanasabinglugarathaloslahatngnakatiradoonaypawangakingmgakaibiganat
kamaganakan....
[28]
Id.at48.Allingagsaid,atgumagawaakosanasabingsakabilangkatulonglamangniJuanGalope.
[29]
Supranote24,at8485.
[30]
Supranote21.
[31]
SeeBalatbatv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.36378,January27,1992,205SCRA419,425.
[32]
AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED [3844], AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
AGRICULTURALLANDREFORMCODE,ANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/185669.htm

9/9