G.R. No. 176942 Case Digest

G.R. No. 176942, August 28, 2008

Nicorp Management and Development Corp.

vs Leonida de Leon

G.R. No. 177125, August 28, 2008

Salvador Lim

vs Leonida de Leon

Ponente: Ynares-Santiago

Facts:

August 2004, de Leon filed a complaint before Office of Provincial Afrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)- Region 4 that Lim and NICORP be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in Cavite, in the name of Leoncia de Leon and Susana de Leon (sisters of Leonida).

de Leon prayed that Lim and NICORP to respect her tenancy rights, as well as to restore the land to its original condition and not to covert it to non-agricultural use.

Lim denied de Leon was a tenant, alleging that de Leon  is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling the land, and that the MARO certified that the land had no registered tenant, and that de Leon cannot be considered landless tiller under CARP because she owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired from inheritance.

NICORP asserted that it was not a proper party because it is still negotiating with the owners as to acquire ownership of the land, however, NICORP joins that de Leon was not a tenant.

PARAD referred the case to RARAD. RARAD dismissed the complaint for failure to prove substantial evidence of the agricultural tenancy relationship. DARAB affirmed the decision of the RARAD. On appeal, CA reversed the findings of RARAD/DARAB, saying that the letter of Susana to Dolores clearly acknowledged Rolando as tenant, and the sharing of produce was established by the affidavits of neighboring farmers.

CA also held that the reclassification of the land by Sangguniang Panlalawigan as residential cannot be given weight because it is only DAR that can reclassify or convert agricultural land to other classifications, and that the sale of the land to Lim was void because it was violative of CARP.

Issue: Whether de Leon was a tenant.

Ruling:

There is a tenancy relationship if the following essential elements 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 landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee. All the foregoing requisites must be proved by substantial evidence and the absence of one will not make an alleged tenant a de jure tenant. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure or covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.

In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate court’s conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with respondent who was their sister-in-law; or that the De Leon sisters received any share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy relationship.

As to the letter, de Leon was not mentioned at all in Susana's letter. de Leon will not necessarily be conferred the same status as tenant upon her son's death. There is no evidence that de Leon sisters consented to constitute respondent as their tenant on the subject land.

As to the affidavits, the affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest sharing; it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing.

As to the sale, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 and 73(c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal conversion of the land because Sec. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP, i.e. those lands beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law, which were distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not shown that the subject land was covered by the CARP. Neither was it shown that the sale was made to circumvent the application of R.A. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants of the land that they till.