|
LEONARDO
TARONA, EUGENIA TARONA, NITA TARONA, LUIS TARONA, ROSALINDA TARONA, APOLONIA
TARONA, CARLOS TARONA, LOURDES TARONA and ROGELIO TARONA,
Petitioners, - versus - COURT OF
APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION), GAY T. LEAÑO, LEMUEL T. LEAÑO, NOEL T. LEAÑO, JEDD
ANTHONY LEAÑO CUISON and JASON ANTHONY LEAÑO CUISON, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 170182 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: June 18, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is the Decision dated April 27,
2005[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86164, reversing and
setting aside the January 16, 2004 Decision and August 06, 2004 Resolution of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 9496. The aforementioned DARAB Decision and
Resolution affirmed the October 28, 1999 Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator
of Dinalupihan, Bataan, in Case No.
R-0301-0115-98, which in turn dismissed private respondents’ action for
recovery of possession of the landholding in question and ordering the latter
to respect the status of the petitioners as bona-fide
tenants thereof. Likewise questioned is
the Resolution dated October 19, 2005[2] of the
CA which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The parcel of land subject of this
case is located in Mauban, now Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan, with an area of
10.4758 hectares, more or less, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
6986[3]
and registered in the name of Antonia T. Leaño married to Federico Leaño.
As
disclosed by the record, the instant case stemmed from a complaint[4]
for recovery of possession of the subject landholding filed on May 22, 1998,
with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in Dinalupihan, Bataan,
by herein private respondents Gay T. Leaño, Lemuel T. Leaño, Noel T. Leaño,
Jedd Leaño Cuison and Jason Leaño Cuison, against petitioners Leonardo,
Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda, all surnamed Tarona. Later, the other petitioners, namely Apolonia,
Carlos,
Essentially,
private respondents alleged that they are co-owners of the land subject of the
case which they inherited from their late mother, Antonia T. Leaño, in whose
name said property is titled. Private respondents claimed that the petitioners,
then defendants and intervenors, are not lawful and bona fide tenants of the subject landholding because they have no
legal or valid document evidencing tenancy or any proof of rental
payments. The purported lease agreement
executed by their father in favor of one Juanito Tarona was void for their
father had no authority to deal with their mother’s paraphernal property. They likewise alleged that during the
lifetime of their mother, the land was administered by Cesario and Meliton
Fronda, both of whom are now dead. It
was after Antonia’s death that then defendants Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis
and Rosalinda Tarona entered the land and took possession of the same. Since barangay conciliation and mediation
proceedings conducted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Morong failed,
and subsequent demands for petitioners to vacate the land likewise proved futile,
private respondents were thus constrained to file the complaint.
Answering
the complaint, the original defendants, Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and
Rosalinda, and the intervenors, Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio, denied
the material allegations therein and averred that as nephews and nieces and the
lawful heirs of the original agricultural lessee, Juanito Tarona, they have
succeeded to the latter’s tenancy rights and are, therefore, bona fide leasehold tenants. In support of the alleged existence of a
tenancy relationship, defendants and intervenors presented in evidence a
Leasehold Agreement dated July 12, 1956[5]
between Juanito Tarona and Federico Leaño, the deceased husband of Antonia and
the father of the private respondents.
Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and Rosalinda asserted that it was not the
Frondas but their predecessor, Juanito, who actually cultivated the subject
land and that they continued such cultivation after the latter’s death. As for the allegation of private respondents
that they are not paying lease rentals, then intervenors Apolonia, Carlos,
Lourdes and Rogelio, all surnamed Tarona, pointed out that if such allegation
was true then they should have been ejected from the landholding a long time
ago for having violated the leasehold agreement. Insisting that the subject
land was part of the late spouses Federico and Antonia Leaño’s conjugal
property and not that of Antonia’s alone, the defendants and the intervenors
asserted that the uninterrupted and physical possession by them of said land
for many years has estopped the private respondents from questioning the
validity of the leasehold agreement. The
defendants and intervenors lastly asserted that the subject landholding is
within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
should be distributed to them.
In
a Decision dated October 28, 1999,[6]
the Bataan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), finding that a
tenancy relationship existed between the parties and that he had no authority
to rule on the coverage of the CARP over the landholding, dismissed private
respondents’ complaint and rendered judgment in this wise:
Wherefore, in the light of the
foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1). Ordering the plaintiffs to respect the
tenurial status of the defendants and intervenors as the bona-fide tenants over
the landholding in question containing an area of 10,000 hectares, more or
less, covering Transfer Certificate of title No. T-6986;
2). Ordering the plaintiffs, their heirs,
assigns, successors-in-interest and all persons acting for and in their
behalves or claiming rights under them to cease and desist from further
harassing, disturbing, molesting or doing acts which tend to eject, oust,
remove defendants and intervenors from their peaceful possession and occupation
of the subject landholding;
3). Ordering the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer to fix the lease rentals of the subject landholding on
the basis of its harvest or produce.
Dismissing the instant complaint
for lack of merit.
All other claims and counterclaims
are hereby ordered dismissed.
SO DECIDED.
NO PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On
appeal, the DARAB affirmed the findings of the PARAD as it explained in its
Decision of January 16, 2004:[8]
Records reveal that the property
involved in the dispute was the subject of a Leasehold Agreement dated July 12,
1956, executed between Antonio T. Leano in the name of Federico C. Leano in
favor of Juanito Tarona. It is to be
noted that before the filing of the instant case, there was a previous case
filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch I of Balanga, Bataan, between the
same parties over the same landholding docketed as Civil Case No. 6649 which
was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there exists a tenancy
relationship with the [appellants] by virtue of the agreement executed by their
respective predecessors-in-interest.
Thereafter, [appellants] filed a complaint before the Honorable
Adjudicator a quo against the same
[appellees] for recovery of possession of the landholding in question. It is noteworthy to stress at this instant
that the subject property was acquired by [appellants] through succession in
1995 as evidenced by the extrajudicial partition among them.
In
fine, the Hon. Adjudicator a quo,
after evaluation and weighing of the parties’ contentions, has found that
[appellees-intervenors] are bonafide
tenants of the subject landholding. The
validity of the Leasehold Agreement having been established, the
[appellees-intervenors] merely succeeded to the rights and privileges of their
predecessor-in-interest, Juanito Tarona, who was the tenant of the subject
landholding. The requisites of tenancy
relationship are present in the case at bar.
x x x
The consideration consists in the sharing of the harvest. The fact that [appellants] did not question
the tenancy of [appellees-intervenors] over the landholding for several years,
amounted to an implied admission or consent to the establishment of a tenancy
relationship between the parties.[9] (Words
in brackets ours.)
The private respondents moved for reconsideration of
the foregoing decision. In its
Resolution of August 6, 2004,[10]
however, the DARAB denied their motion, prompting the private respondents to
file a petition for review with motion for the issuance of a prohibitory
injunction[11] with
the Court of Appeals (CA).
In its herein assailed Decision of April 27, 2005,[12]
the CA reversed and set aside the DARAB decision and resolution.
In its judgment of
reversal, the CA first ruled on the extent of the coverage of the CARP over the
subject landholding, holding that only
In
time, all the Taronas (both the originally impleaded defendants and the
intervenors) filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned
decision. However, in its herein equally
assailed Resolution dated October 19, 2005, [15]
the CA denied said motion.
Hence,
the Taronas, now the petitioners, are before us
contending that the CA erred and gravely abused its discretion in (1)
declaring that the transfer of residence by Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and
Rogelio Tarona from Morong, Bataan, to Caloocan City, negated their claim of
personal cultivation of the landholding in dispute which is located in Morong,
Bataan; (2) not appreciating the fact that a tenancy relationship between the
private respondents and Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis, and Rosalinda Tarona was
impliedly created by virtue of the latter’s continuous and uninterrupted
possession and cultivation of the land since 1957 without any disturbance from
the private respondents and Antonia Leaño; and (3) prematurely declaring that
only
The
petition is devoid of merit.
As we see it, the first and second
issues being raised herein hinge on the existence of tenancy relations between
the parties. This is a question of fact
which generally is beyond this Court’s scope of review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. However, we are compelled
to review the facts of this case, since the findings of the CA are contrary to
those of the DARAB.[16]
The PARAD essentially held that the status of
petitioners as tenants was derived from their status as heirs of the deceased
Juanito Tarona who was named the tenant in an agricultural lease agreement
involving the subject property. As noted
by the CA, even as the DARAB affirmed the PARAD decision on appeal, only
intervenors Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio were expressly held by the
DARAB to be the heirs of Juanito Tarona.
This is not surprising since petitioners Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis,
and Rosalinda Tarona admitted repeatedly in their pleadings that they are the
nephews and nieces of Juanito Tarona. As
correctly held by the CA, succession of tenancy rights is limited to direct
descendants only. Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 clearly provides:
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or
permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the
leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can
cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within
one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest
direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or
descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or
permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural
year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year:
Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise
his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in
accordance with the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the
agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. (Emphasis ours)
As for petitioners
Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio (intevernors in the proceedings a quo), allegedly the wife and children
of Juanito Tarona, the Court cannot give credence to their claim of bona fide tenancy over any part of the
subject property. To begin with, a
careful perusal of the records of the case showed that not a shred of evidence
was ever presented to buttress petitioners’ assertion of relationship to
Juanito Tarona.
Even assuming their
relationship to Juanito Tarona was duly proved, we agree with the CA that not
all the elements for the creation of a tenancy relationship between these
petitioners (intervenors) and private respondents have been established in this
case.
In order to establish a tenancy relationship, the
following essential requisites must concur: (1) the parties are the landowner
and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the
relationship is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties
to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.[17] All these requisites are necessary to create
a tenancy relationship and the absence of one or more will not make the alleged
tenant a de facto tenant.[18]
In
the case at bar, the CA held that there is no tenancy relationship between the
private respondents and petitioners Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio
Tarona due to the absence of personal cultivation of the subject landholding by
the latter.
In
arriving at such a finding, the appellate court gave full credence to the
evidence proffered by private respondents showing that the aforementioned
petitioners are not residents of the locality where the subject landholding is
and neither are they tenants of any lot
thereat. The evidence, among others,
consists of the Certification dated October 9, 2003[19]
issued by the Barangay Captain of Mauban, now Nagbalayong, Morong, Bataan,
stating that Apolonia, Carlos, Lourdes and Rogelio Tarona are not residents
therein and that they do not personally cultivate the subject property; and the
Certification[20] of the
election officer of Caloocan City showing that said persons are residents and
registered voters of Caloocan City.
We
find no reason to disturb the aforesaid finding of the CA. Clearly, private respondents’ evidence, which
significantly the petitioners failed to refute, more than substantially proved
the impossibility of personal cultivation.
Petitioners (intervenors) have already left the place where the subject
land lies in Morong, Bataan, and now live in another locality which is in
Caloocan City. Since Bataan is of a considerable distance from Caloocan City,
it would undeniably be physically impossible for the petitioners to personally
cultivate the landholding. In Deloso v. Marapao,[21]
we upheld the ruling of the CA that while a tenant is not required to be
physically present in the land at all hours of the day and night, such doctrine
cannot be stretched to apply to a case wherein the supposed tenant has chosen
to reside in another place so far from the land to be cultivated that it would
be physically impossible to be present therein with some degree of constancy as
to allow the tenant to cultivate the same.
Intervenors
likewise argue in their petition that their transfer of residence to
Even
further weakening their position, intervenors were not able to substantiate, by
the necessary quantum of evidence, the existence of a tenancy relationship by
virtue of their alleged continuous and uninterrupted possession and cultivation
of the subject land since 1957 up to the present. Aside from the leasehold agreement executed
between the private respondents’ and petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest and
their bare allegations of continuous possession, no other evidence was adduced
in support of such claim.
In the same vein, the record is bereft of evidence
proving that the other petitioners, namely Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita, Luis and
Rosalinda Tarona, have been continuously in possession and uninterrupted
cultivation of the landholding as nephews and nieces and members of Juanito
Tarona’s immediate farm household since 1957.
While personal cultivation, as
defined by law, is cultivation by the lessee or lessor in person and/or with
the aid of labor from within his immediate household, i.e., members of the
family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for
support and who usually help him in his activities,[22]
there is nothing in this case to show that petitioners Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita,
Luis and Rosalinda were indeed members of Juanito’s immediate farm household
who helped him in cultivating the land during his lifetime.
Even
assuming purely for the sake of argument that at some point in time these
petitioners had been cultivating the land, there was no proof that the supposed
occupation and cultivation of the land by these petitioners were with the
knowledge or consent of private respondents or their predecessor-in-interest or
that petitioners paid and private respondents received rentals. In view of this
evidentiary dearth, we cannot uphold petitioners’ argument that an agricultural
tenancy relationship was “impliedly” created between Leonardo, Eugenia, Nita,
Luis and Rosalinda, and the private respondents. Thus, the CA properly reversed the PARAD and
DARAB ruling on this point.
In
the absence of the requisite of personal cultivation as it is defined by law,
we cannot but rule that all the petitioners herein are not tenants of the private
respondents. It has been held that personal
cultivation is an important factor in determining the existence of an
agricultural lease relationship such that in its absence, an occupant of a
tract of land, or a cultivator thereof, or planter thereon, cannot qualify as a
de jure lessee.[23] In sum, the CA did not err when it found that
no tenancy relations existed between the private respondents and the
petitioners.
We
part ways with the CA, however, with regard to its declaration that only
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated
April 27, 2005 and Resolution dated October 19, 2005 of the CA are AFFIRMED insofar as it declared the
petitioners not tenants of the subject landholding, and REVERSED with respect to the finding of the extent of the coverage
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program over the land subject of the case.
No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and the late Roberto A. Barrios, concurring; rollo, pp. 38-50.
[2] Id. at 36.
[3] CA Record, p. 25; the precise area stated
on TCT No. 6986 is
[4] DARAB Record, pp. 18-20.
[5] Rollo, pp. 53-54.
[6] Id. at 55-66.
[7] Id. at 65-66.
[8] Id. at 67-73.
[9] Id. at 71-72.
[10] Id. at 74-75.
[11] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 86164; CA Records, pp. 2-18.
[12] Supra note 1.
[13] Intervenors-Appellees in CA-G.R. SP No. 86164 and Intervenors in DARAB Case No. 9496.
[14] Defendants-Appellees in CA-G.R. SP No. 86164 and Defendants in DARAB Case No. 9496.
[15] Supra note 2.
[16] See Deloso
v. Marapao, G.R. No. 144244,
[17] Id. at 593.
[18]
Suarez v. Saul,
et al.,
G.R. No. 166664,
[19] CA Record, p. 331.
[20] Id. at 464-466.
[21] Supra note 16, pp. 593-594.
[22] Verde
v. Macapagal, G.R. No. 151342,
[23] Id. at 106.
[24] Sta. Rosa Development Corporation v. Juan B. Amante, et al., G.R. No. 112526, March 16, 2005, 453 SCRA 434, 471.
[25] Section 50 of
R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) provides that:
Sec. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR
is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
[26] Rule II, Section 1 provides that:
SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. — The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act
No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as
amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian
laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over
but not be limited to the following:
x x x
Provided, however, that matters involving strictly
the administrative implementation of the CARP and other agrarian laws and regulations,
shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the
DAR.
[27] Section 2 of which pertinently provides the
following:
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. — These Rules shall
govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary
which shall include the following:
(a)
Classification and identification of
landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of
coverage;
x x x
[28] Issued on
[29] In full, the title of this case reads “Re:
Protest from CARP Coverage of Gay T. Leaño, Lemuel T. Leaño, Noel T. Leaño,
Jedd Anthony T. Leaño Cuison and Jason Anthony Leaño Cuison, Involving a
Landholding Covered by TCT No. T-6986 With An Area of
[30] Id. at 80.