G.R. No. 155580 . July 1, 2015.
ROMEO T. CALUZOR, Petitioner, vs. DEOGRACIAS LLANILLO and THE HEIRS OF THE LATE LORENZO LLANILLO, and MOLD EX REALTY CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Lorenzo Llanillo owned a parcel of agricultural land in Marilao, Bulacan. Petitioner Romeo T. Caluzor averred that Lorenzo took him in as a tenant in 1970, gave him a sketch of the boundaries, and allowed him to build a makeshift shanty. After Lorenzo’s death, Caluzor claimed he continued giving a share of the produce to Lorenzo’s family through overseer Ricardo Martin. In 1990, respondent Deogracias Llanillo (Lorenzo’s son) allegedly offered to pay Caluzor for turning over the land but did not pay. On August 5, 1994, Deogracias forcibly ejected Caluzor and his family by bulldozing their shanty and plantation. Caluzor filed a complaint for disturbance compensation and restoration of possession before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). He later amended the complaint to implead Moldex Realty Corporation, which had entered the land to develop a residential subdivision. Deogracias denied the existence of a tenancy relationship and presented certifications from agrarian reform officials stating the land was untenanted, and a letter from Lorenzo requesting a change in the land’s classification. On April 12, 1995, the DAR Secretary granted the application for conversion of the land from agricultural to residential/commercial use filed by Deogracias through Moldex. The PARAD dismissed the complaint, finding no tenancy relationship due to lack of consent and proof of sharing harvests. The DARAB reversed the PARAD, ruling that Caluzor was a de jure tenant and ordering his reinstatement. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the DARAB and reinstated the PARAD’s dismissal, noting the land had been legally converted and developed into a subdivision.

ISSUE

Whether or not an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between Caluzor and the Llanillos.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. Agricultural tenancy is not presumed and must be established by evidence proving all its essential requisites: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject is agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) the harvest is shared. The Court found that Caluzor failed to prove the elements of consent and sharing of harvests. The sketch he presented as proof of consent appeared to be a technical document unlikely drawn by the landowner. He submitted no leasehold contract, certification listing him as a tenant, or receipts for rental payments. The lone receipt for a cash payment he presented was insufficient to prove a consistent sharing arrangement. The certifications from agrarian reform officers stating the land was untenanted contradicted his claim. Furthermore, the land had been legally converted to residential/commercial use and developed into a subdivision, making the restoration of possession impossible. The Court emphasized that the protective mantle of agrarian laws does not cover intruders or squatters.