GR 86186; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992
RAFAEL GELOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ERNESTO ALZONA, respondents.
FACTS
The subject land is a 25,000 square meter farmland in Cabuyao, Laguna, originally owned by private respondent Ernesto Alzona and his parents. On July 5, 1970, they entered into a written contract entitled “Kasunduan ng Upahang Araw” with petitioner Rafael Gelos, employing him as a laborer at a daily wage of P5.00. On September 4, 1973, after Alzona acquired full ownership, he terminated Gelos’s services and demanded he vacate. Gelos refused and continued working. Gelos filed a case for lease rental fixation with the Court of Agrarian Relations but later withdrew it. Alzona filed an illegal detainer complaint, but the Ministry of Agrarian Reform declared it improper due to an alleged tenancy relationship. After various proceedings, the Regional Trial Court (formerly CAR) dismissed Alzona’s complaint, finding Gelos a tenant. The Court of Appeals reversed this, holding Gelos was not a tenant but a hired laborer.
ISSUE
Whether Rafael Gelos is a tenant of the landowner Ernesto Alzona, entitled to security of tenure under tenancy laws, or merely a hired laborer whose right to occupy the land ended with the termination of his employment contract.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals. Rafael Gelos is not a tenant but a hired laborer. The Court held that the written “Kasunduan ng Upahang Araw” clearly stipulated a contract of employment, not tenancy. The agreement stated Gelos was “hindi kasama sa bukid kundi upahan lamang” (not a farm tenant but only a hired laborer) paid per day of work. The Court emphasized that tenancy is a legal relationship defined by intent and agreement, and the parties’ written contract, not contrary to law, governs. The requisite of sharing of harvests or payment of rental was not proven. The payment of irrigation fees was due to a provisional leasehold order during the case’s pendency and was not conclusive. The lack of evidence on harvest sharing or rental payment from 1970-1973 further negated tenancy. The elements of an employer-employee relationship were present. Therefore, Gelos had no right to remain on the land after his employment was terminated.