Caluzor v.

Llanillo, Moldex Realty

Facts:
Petitioner Romeo Caluzor alleges that Lorenzo Llanillo took him as
a tenant, giving him (Caluzor) a sketch of the the land he will be
cultivating. Even after the death of Lorenzo, Caluzor continued
giving Lorenzos share to his overseer, Martin Ricardo. In 1990,
Deogracias Llanillo, son of Lorenzo, offered to pay Caluzor P17,000
per hectare of the cultivated land in exchange for turning his
(Caluzors) tillage over to Deogracias. However, no payment was
made and instead, Caluzor was ejected from the land. Efforts
before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council proved futile which
gave authority to Caluzor to file the instant case.
Before the PARAD
Petitioner prayed for the restoration of land to his possession and
prayed for the payment of disturbance compensation. On the other
hand, Deogracias denied any tenancy relationship existed between
him and Caluzor; he presented several documents, among which
are the master list of tenants and landowners, and a letter for
requesting a change in the classification of the land.
Meanwhile, DAR granted the application of the land from
agricultural to residential and commercial use filed by Deogracias
through his attorney-in-fact, Moldex.
PARAD ultimately dismissed the complaint. It ruled that petitioner
failed to adduce evidence that the landowner gave his consent for
Caluzor to become tenant of the land. Caluzor failed to present
evidence he has a leasehold contract, and that any receipt of
payment for his alleged leasehold rentals. It is a well settled
doctrine that mere cultivation without proof of tenancy conditions
does not suffice to establish tenancy relations.
Before the DARAB
Caluzor appealed to the DARAB, and the latter ruled in favour of
Caluzor. It held that the institution of Caluzor as tenant in the land
and sharing of the produce sufficiently established tenancy
relationship between them. The subsequent conveyance of the land
to the heirs does not extinguish Caluzors right to till the land (See
Section 10, Agricultural leasehold relation not extinguished by
expiration of period, etc.).
Before the Court of Appeals
Deogracias and Moldex appealed the decision of the DARAB. The
CA revised the ruling of the DARAB and reinstated the decision of
PARAB. It held that the application for conversion of land was
granted because the land is no longer suitable for agricultural
production, the property has been classified as residential/
commercial, and MARO, PARO, RD, CLUPPI) recommended the
approval. In fact, subject land is not a developed subdivision. There
can be no agricultural tenant on a residential land.
With regards the disturbance compensation, the records are bereft
of evidence showing that Caluzor is tenant of Llanillo.
Hence, this recourse to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
Whether a tenancy relationship exists between Caluzor and Llanillo.
Ruling:
There is no tenancy relationship between Caluzor and Llanillo.
Tenancy relationship and entitlement to disturbance compensation
requires factual and legal bases. Section 5 provides that a tenant
shall mean a person who, himself and with the aid available from
his immediate farm household cultivates the land belonging to, or

possessed by another, with the latters consent for purposes of

production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the
share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain
or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the
leasehold tenancy system.
The following elements must concur: (PACPPH)
1, the parties are the landowner and tenant;
2, the subject matter is agricultural land;
3, there is consent between the parties and 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;
6, the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or
agricultural lessee.
The absence of one will not make an alleged tenant a de jure
tenant. Unless a person has established that he is a de jure tenant,
he is not entitled to security of tenure or to be covered by the land
reform program.
In establishing tenancy relationship, independent evince should
prove the consent of the landowner to the relationship and the
sharing of the harvest. In this case, the third and sixth elements
are not present.
Caluzor testified that Lorenzo allowed him to cultivate the land by
giving to him (Caluzor) the sketch of the lot in order to delineate
the portion of his tillage. Yet, the sketch did not establish that
Lorenzo had categorically taken the petitioner as his agricultural
tenant. This element (consent) demanded that the landowner and
tenant should have agreed to the relationship freely and voluntarily,
with neither of them unduly imposing his will on the other. In this
case, there is no showing of such consent.
Even assuming that Lorenzo permitted Caluzor to till the land, there
is still no tenancy relationship established because they had not
discussed any fruit sharing scheme, with Lorenzo simply telling him
that he would just ask his share from Caluzor. Petitioner disclosed
that he did not see Lorenzo after he received the sketch and until
Lorenzos death. Although he still continued sharing the
fruits through Ricardo evidenced by a list of produce to
support his claim, the list did not indicate Ricardos
receiving the fruits listed. It did not also contain Ricardos
authority to receive Lorenzos share.
The absence of the clear cut sharing agreement between Caluzor
and Lorenzo could only signify that the latter merely tolerated
Caluzors cultivation sans tenancy. It did not make him de jure
tenant. There must be concrete evidence on record
adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing
of harvests, a receipt or any other credible evidence must
be presented. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.
Leasehold tenancy is not brought about by mere
congruence of facts but, being a legal relationship, the
mutual will of the parties to that relationship should be
primordial.
To be entitled to disturbance compensation, one should be a de
jure tenant. The de jure tenant should allege and prove (1) the
cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation, planting, or
harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his
crop and (2) necessary and useful improvements made in
cultivationg the land.