GR 185669; (February, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185669; February 1, 2012
JUAN GALOPE, Petitioner, vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN, Represented by CELSO RABANG, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Cresencia Bugarin owns agricultural land in Nueva Ecija. Petitioner Juan Galope has been farming this land since the early 1990s. In a barangay case, respondent sought to recover the land, alleging she merely lent it to petitioner and received insignificant returns. Petitioner countered he pays rent ranging from ₱4,000 to ₱6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The dispute proceeded to the DARAB, where the Provincial Adjudicator ruled petitioner was a tenant with security of tenure, citing a DAR certification and witness affidavits. The DARAB reversed, finding no tenancy relationship due to alleged absence of consent and sharing, emphasizing the lack of receipts for rental payments. The Court of Appeals affirmed the DARAB.
ISSUE
Whether a tenancy relationship exists between petitioner and respondent.
RULING
Yes, a tenancy relationship exists. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and DARAB, holding they erred in disregarding substantial evidence and misapplying the elements of tenancy. The essential elements are present: the parties are landowner and cultivator; the subject is agricultural land; there is consent, as respondent admitted allowing petitioner to cultivate; the purpose is agricultural production; there is personal cultivation by petitioner; and there is sharing of harvest.
The lower tribunals incorrectly fixated on the absence of receipts to disprove sharing. This was rendered moot by respondent’s own judicial admission in the barangay case record, where she conceded receiving rentals, albeit claiming they were small. This admission confirms the fact of payment and sharing, corroborating the affidavits attesting to the payment of 15 cavans of palay. Consent was established by respondent’s act of permitting cultivation and accepting rent, which constitutes implied tenancy under Section 5 of RA 3844. The burden to prove a lawful cause for ejectment rests on the agricultural lessor under Section 37 of RA 3844, which respondent failed to discharge. Petitioner’s possession, cultivation, and the DAR certification substantiate his status as a tenant entitled to security of tenure.