GR 172287; (January, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172287 ; January 15, 2010
Welfredo Ceneze, Petitioner, vs. Feliciana Ramos, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Welfredo Ceneze filed an action for declaration as a bona fide tenant-lessee of two agricultural lots owned by respondent Feliciana Ramos. He alleged that in 1981, his father, Julian Ceneze, Sr., transferred his tenurial rights to him with the respondent’s consent, and he possessed the land until April 12, 1991, when respondent forcibly dispossessed him. Respondent denied instituting petitioner as a tenant, asserting that Julian, Sr. was the original tenant. She claimed that after Julian, Sr. and later his son, Julian, Jr., migrated abroad, she took possession of the landholding. The Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB ruled in favor of petitioner, relying on a BARC Chairman’s Certification, an Affidavit from Julian, Sr., and a Joint Affidavit from adjacent tenants. The Court of Appeals reversed these decisions and dismissed the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner failed to establish the existence of a tenancy relationship with the respondent.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and requires the presence of all its indispensable elements: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of the harvest. Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to prove these elements. The BARC Chairman’s Certification is not binding on the judiciary. The Affidavit of Julian, Sr. was unauthenticated, self-serving, and lacked corroboration for the alleged consent of the landowner. The Joint Affidavit of the other tenants was ambiguously worded and inconsistent with petitioner’s claim regarding the start of his tenancy. Critically, petitioner presented no concrete evidence, such as receipts, to prove the sharing of harvests. Consequently, no tenancy relationship was established, and the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the case.