Spouses Cayetano and Patricia Tiongson, etc.
vs CA and Teodoro Macaya
Ponente: Gutierrez
Facts:
1946, Severino Manotok donated and transferred
to his 8 children and 2 grandchildren a 34 hectare
land in Quezon City. Severino Manotok was
appointed judicial guardian of his minor children.
There was no tenant occupying the property at the
time of the donation.
Later, Teodoro Macaya accompanied Vicente
Herrera, the overseer of the property, went to the
Manotok and pleaded that he be allowed to live in
the property to prevent theft and to guard the
property. Manotok allowed Macaya but imposed
the condition that any time the owners needed to
take the property, Macaya and his family must
vacate, and that he could raise animals and plant
according to his needs, and that the owners have
no responsibility to Macaya and he will use only 3
hectares. These conditions were not put in writing.
In 1950, the property owners organized themselves
as a corporation and transferred the 34 hectare
land a capital contribution to the capital stock of
the corporation. Later, when the owners
demanded for payment of taxes, Macaya agreed to
help pay the taxes by remitting 10 cavans of palay
every year as his contribution. Later, owners
requested Macaya to increase his contribution to
20 cavans, Macaya agreed. Later, Macaya pleaded
that he will contribute 10 cavans only, the owners
said the "he might as well not deliver anymore".
Macaya did not deliver palays from then on.
1974, the owners executed a Unilateral Deed of
Conveyance of the property to Patricia Tiongson,
etc. Macaya was informed that the land is needed
for house construction of the owners and was
asked to vacate, Macaya pleaded that he may be
allowed to harvest first before vacating. However,
after harvest, Macaya did not vacate and even
expand his cultivation to 6 hectares without the
consent of the owners.
Issue: Whether there is tenancy relationship
between the parties.
Ruling:
Real estate taxes of the property declare the land
as residential. The physical view of the property
also shows that the land was a rolling forestal land
without any flat portion except the one tilled by
Macaya.
As to the sharing, the decision of the petitioners
not to ask for anymore contributions from Macaya
reveals that there was no tenancy relationship ever
agreed upon by the parties. Neither can such
relationship be implied from the facts as there was
no agreed system of sharing the produce of the
property. Moreover, from 1946 to 1956 at which
time, Macaya was also planting rice, there was no
payment whatsoever. At the most and during the
limited period when it was in force, the
arrangement was a civil lease where the lessee for
a fixed price leases the property while the lessor
has no responsibility whatsoever for the problems
of production and enters into no agreement as to
the sharing of the costs of fertilizers, irrigation,
seedlings, and other items.
As to consent, the lot was taxed as residential land
in a metropolitan area. There was clearly no
intention on the part of the owners to devote the
property for agricultural production but only for
residential purposes. Thus, together with the third
requisite, the fourth requisite which is the purpose
was also not present.
There was no agreement as to any system of
sharing the produce of the land. The petitioners did
not get anything from the harvest and private
respondent Macaya was using and cultivating the
land free from any charge or expense.
Caballes vs DAR
ACTS
This is a petition for certiorari seeking the
annulment of an Order issued by public respondent
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its
then Secretary, the Hon. Heherson Alvarez, finding
the existence of a tenancy relationship between
the herein petitioner and the private respondent.
The landholding subject of the controversy, which
consists of only sixty (60) square meters was
acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda
Caballes (petitioner), by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by
Andrea Alicaba Millenes. This landholding is part of
Lot No. 3109-C, which has a total area of about 500
square meters, situated at Lawa-an, Talisay, Cebu.
In 1975, before the sale in favor of the Caballes
spouses, private respondent Bienvenido Abajon
constructed his house on a portion of
the said landholding, paying a monthly rental of
2.00 to the owner, Andrea Millenes. The
landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a
portion of the land, agreeing that the produce
thereof would be shared by both on a fifty-fifty
basis. Abajon planted corn and bananas
on the landholding. For four years, he paid the
2.00 rental for the lot occupied by his house, and
delivered 50% of the produce to the
owner.
As the property was sold, the new owners asked
Abajon to vacate the premises, saying they needed
the property, but Abajon refused.
On April 1, 1982, Yolanda Caballes, executed an
Affidavit stating that immediately after she
reprimanded Abajon for harvesting bananas and
jackfruit from the property without her knowledge,
thelatter, with malicious and ill intent, cut down
the banana plants on the
property worth about 50.00. A criminal case for
malicious mischief
was filed against Abajon. (Obviously, all the
planting on the property,
including that of the banana plants, had been done
by Abajon). Upon motion of the respondent in
open court, the trial court ordered the referral of
the case to the Regional Office of the Public
Respondent for a preliminary determination of the
relationship between the parties.
The Regional Director of DAR held that there is the
existence of a tenancy relationship between the
parties. On appeal by the petitioner, the Secretary
of DAR, reversed the decision of the Regional
Director. Upon motion for reconsideration filed by
the private respondent, the New DAR Secretary
sets aside the previous
decision and finds the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not there is an existence of a
tenancy relationship between the parties.
HELD
There is none. The Higher Court laid down the
essential requisites of a tenancy relationship. All
requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
relationship between the parties. The absence of
one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land,
or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de
jure tenant. The fact of sharing alone is not
sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. This
does not automatically make the tiller-sharer a
tenant thereof especially when the area tilled is
only 60 square meters and located in an urban area
and in the heart of an industrial or commercial
zone. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a
parcel of land has been given its possession for the
primary purpose of agricultural production. The
circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was
allowed by the owner out of benevolence or
compassion to live in the premises and to have a
garden of some sort rather than a tenant.
Agricultural production as the primary purpose
being absent in the arrangement is a clear proof
that the private respondent was never a tenant.