G.R. No. 150305 . November 22, 2007.
Honofre Fuentes, petitioner, vs. Felomino Caguimbal, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Honofre Fuentes filed an unlawful detainer case against respondent Felomino Caguimbal before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Fuentes alleged he allowed Caguimbal to occupy his titled property in Calatagan, Batangas, rent-free on the condition that Caguimbal would vacate upon Fuentes’s return from abroad. Upon his return, Caguimbal refused to leave. Caguimbal defended his possession by claiming he and his father had been agricultural tenants on the land since 1928, thereby asserting the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment case as the issue involved agrarian tenancy.
The MTC ruled in favor of Fuentes, ordering Caguimbal to vacate. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC, finding an agricultural tenancy relationship existed and thus dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Fuentes elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s finding that an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between the parties, which would divest the MTC of jurisdiction over the ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the MTC decision. The legal logic centered on the essential elements required to establish a tenancy relationship. For a tenancy to exist, the following must concur: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of the harvest. The Court found the element of consent was glaringly absent.
The evidence revealed a history of conflict, including a prior dismissed case for recovery of possession filed by Fuentes against Caguimbal’s father. This adversarial history negated any consensual agreement to establish a tenancy. The respondent’s mere assertion of tenancy, without proof of a mutual agreement to that effect, was insufficient to overturn the petitioner’s Torrens title and claim of possession by tolerance. Since no tenancy relationship was proven, the MTC properly exercised jurisdiction over the ejectment case. Consequently, the MTC’s order for Caguimbal to vacate was valid. The Court also deleted the RTC’s award of attorney’s fees to Caguimbal, as it was not sought in the pleadings nor assigned as an error on appeal.