G.R. No. 169589 June 16, 2009
JOAQUIN SOLIMAN, LAZARO ALMARIO, ISIDRO ALMARIO, BALDOMERO ALMARIO, DEMETRIO SOLIMAN, ROMEO ABARIN, ERNESTO TAPANG and CRISOSTOMO ABARIN, Petitioners, vs. PAMPANGA SUGAR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (PASUDECO), INC. and GERRY RODRIGUEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

The property subject of the case is a 10-hectare land in Cabalantian, Bacolor, Pampanga, formerly owned by Dalmacio Sicat. On May 22, 1970, Dalmacio and his tenants filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) seeking approval of the voluntary surrender of the property with payment of disturbance compensation. The CAR approved the surrender on the same day, terminating the tenancy relationship effective May 21, 1970. Also on May 22, 1970, Dalmacio executed a Deed of Sale with Mortgage in favor of respondent Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), which intended to use the land as a housing complex for its employees. PASUDECO obtained titles to the property on May 31, 1974 but deferred the housing project due to financial setbacks after the imposition of Martial Law in 1972.
Petitioners claimed they started working on the property in November 1970, with corresponding areas of tillage certified by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) and the Samahang Nayon. They alleged that respondent Gerry Rodriguez, PASUDECO’s manager from 1970-1991, made Ciriaco Almario his overseer to collect lease rentals from them, which were remitted to Gerry. They also deposited alleged rentals with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) as land amortizations from 1989 to 1993. A Certification of Land Transfer (CLT) was issued to petitioner Baldomero Almario on July 22, 1981.
In April 1990, when PASUDECO decided to pursue the housing project, petitioners filed a Complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with a Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against Gerry Rodriguez before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), later amending it to implead PASUDECO. PASUDECO asserted petitioners were not tenants but interlopers.
The PARAD dismissed the complaint on August 16, 1995, finding no direct proof of tenancy, specifically absence of consent and sharing. The DARAB reversed the PARAD on January 15, 2004, finding the elements of consent and sharing present, noting petitioners tilled the land for almost 20 years and that the property remained agricultural due to the lack of approval for PASUDECO’s conversion application. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DARAB on April 12, 2005, reinstating the PARAD’s decision, holding no tenancy relationship existed due to lack of consent and sharing, and thus the DARAB had no jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether or not a tenancy relationship existed between petitioners and respondents.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that for a tenancy relationship to exist, the following essential elements must concur: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of the harvests. All these elements must be proved; absence of one does not make an occupant a de jure tenant.
The Court found the elements of consent and sharing were not established. Consent must be given by the landowner, and PASUDECO, the registered owner since 1970, never consented to petitioners’ cultivation. The CAR’s approval of the voluntary surrender by the former tenants in 1970 effectively terminated any prior tenancy on the land. Petitioners’ entry in November 1970 was without PASUDECO’s knowledge or permission. The acts of Ciriaco Almario could not bind PASUDECO as there was no proof he was authorized to lease the land. Petitioners’ possession was merely tolerated, which does not create a tenancy relationship. The CLT issued to Baldomero Almario was invalid as it pertained to land already owned by PASUDECO, an entity not qualified to be a beneficiary under agrarian reform.
Regarding sharing, petitioners failed to present any receipt or credible evidence proving they shared their harvests with PASUDECO or Gerry Rodriguez. The alleged deposits with LBP were not proof of sharing but were self-serving acts. The certifications from barangay officials and the MARO report were insufficient to prove tenancy as they were not based on personal knowledge of the alleged lease agreements.
Since no tenancy relationship existed, the case was outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling that the PARAD correctly dismissed the complaint.