G.R. No. 78214 Case Digest

G.R. No. 78214, December 5, 1988

Yolanda Caballes

vs Dept. Agrarian Reform, Hon. Heherson Alvarez and Bienvenido Abajon

Ponente: Sarmiento

Facts:

The landholding subject of the controversy is consists of 60 sqm was acquired by spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes by virute of a Deed of Sale executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes, this land is situated in Lawaan Talisay, Cebu. Before the sale of the property to Caballes, Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on a protion of the land, paying monthly rental to Andrea Millenes. Abjon was likewise allowed to plant thereon, and they have agreed that the produce thereon would be shred by them 50-50.

When the property was sold, Caballes told Abajon that they will put up a poultry on the land and they intended to build it close to Abajon's house and they pursuaded Abajon to transfer his dwelling to the opposite portion of the land. Abajon offered to pay renta; to the new owners, but they refuse and later demanded for Abajon to vacate. Abajon refused to leave.

DAR concluded that Abajon was a tenant of the former owner, Andrea.

Issue: Whether Abajon is a tenant under the new owners.

Ruling:

Abajon is not a tenant for it only occupied a miniscule portion of the land which cannot be interpreted as economic-family size farm under the definition of RA 3844.

The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:

1.            The parties are the landowner and the tenant;

2.            The subject is agricultural land;

3.            There is consent;

4.            The purpose is agricultural production;

5.            There is personal cultivation; and

6.            There is sharing of harvests.

All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.

Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. Certainly, it is not unusual for a landowner to accept some of the produce of his land from someone who plants certain crops thereon. This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or patikim, a native way of expressing gratitude for favor received. This, however, does not automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof especially when the area tilled is only 60, or even 500, square meters and located in an urban area and in. the heart of an industrial or commercial zone at that. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production. The circumstances of this case indicate that the private respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a garden of some sort at its south western side rather than a tenant of the said portion.

Anent the second assignment of error, the petitioner argues that since Abajon, is not an agricultural tenant, the criminal case for malicious mischief filed against him should be declared as proper for trial so that proceedings in the lower court can resume.