G.R. No. 170956; May 12, 2010
FELISA R. FERRER, Petitioner, vs. DOMINGO CARGANILLO, SERGIO CARGANILLO, SOLEDAD AGUSTIN AND MARCELINA SOLIS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felisa R. Ferrer filed four separate complaints for ejectment and damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) against respondents Domingo Carganillo, Sergio Carganillo, Soledad Agustin, and Marcelina Solis. In DARAB Case No. 7862, Ferrer alleged that her tenant, Domingo Carganillo, subleased or mortgaged his tenancy rights over a 6,000-square meter lot in Pangasinan to his brother, Sergio Carganillo, without her knowledge and consent. She presented an Investigation Report from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and an affidavit from a witness, Angela Clarion, to support her claim. Domingo denied the allegation, asserting he remained in actual possession, while Sergio admitted only to helping his brother cultivate the land. The PARAD dismissed the complaint, finding Ferrer failed to prove the alleged sublease by clear and convincing evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the ejectment case against Domingo and Sergio Carganillo, thereby upholding the finding that no prohibited sublease or mortgage of tenancy rights occurred.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic rests on the quantum of evidence required in agrarian cases and the burden of proof. Ejectment of a tenant under the agrarian reform laws, such as for a prohibited act like subleasing under Section 27 of Republic Act No. 3844, must be based on substantial evidence. The Court found that petitioner Ferrer failed to meet this burden. The MARO’s Investigation Report and the supporting affidavit were deemed insufficient as they were based on hearsay—the officer did not personally witness the sublease but relied on statements from others. The alleged “Katulagan” or agreement between the brothers was presented only on appeal to the DARAB and was thus correctly disregarded for being belatedly offered. Respondents’ evidence, including affidavits from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council Chairman and a neighboring tenant affirming Domingo’s continued supervision of the land, created sufficient doubt. In the absence of clear and convincing proof of a violation, the security of tenure accorded to agricultural tenants must be upheld. The findings of fact by the PARAD and DARAB, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion.