TodayisWednesday,October19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.70736March16,1987
BONIFACIOL.HILARIOandEDUARDAM.BUENCAMINOHILARIO,petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLEINTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTANDSALVADORBALTAZAR,respondents.
BonifacioL.Hilarioforpetitioners.
AlbertoMala,Jr.forprivaterespondent.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheCourtofAppeals'decisiondeclaringSalvadorBaltazaraleasehold
tenantentitledtosecurityoftenureonaparceloflandconsistingof1,740squaremeters.
OnJanuary13,1981,SalvadorBaltazarfiledaverifiedcomplaintwiththeCourtofAgrarianRelations,BranchVIat
Baliuag, Bulacan alleging that since January, 1955 he had been in continuous possession as a share tenant of a
parceloflandwithanareaofabout2hectaressituatedinSanMiguel,Bulacan,whichwaspreviouslyownedbyone
Socorro Vda. de Balagtas that on or about December 27, 1980, and thereafter, the spouses Hilario began to
threaten him to desist from entering and cultivating a portion of the aforesaid land with an area of 4,000 square
metersandotherwisecommittedactsinviolationofhissecurityoftenurethattheHilarioswerecontemplatingthe
puttingupofafencearoundthesaidportionof4,000squaremetersandthatunlessrestrainedbythecourt,they
wouldcontinuetodosotohisgreatirreparableinjury.
Baltazar claims that he became a tenant of Socorro P. Vda. de Balagtas on the latter's twohectare landholding
locatedatSanJuan,SanMiguel,Bulacanbyvirtueofa"Kasunduan"executedbetweenthemonJanuary8,1979,
Hestatesthatheerectedhishouseandplanted"halaman,"theproduceofwhichwasdividedat7030and5050
(sic) in his favor. After the death of Socorro P. Vda. de Balagtas, he allegedly gave the share pertaining to the
landownertoherdaughterCorazonPengzon.ItwasonlyinDecember,1980thathecametoknowthataportionof
the2hectaresor4,000squaremetersisalreadyownedbytheHilarios.
On the other hand, the petitioners aver that they acquired the landholding of 4,000 square meters from the
PhilippineNationalBank(PNB)afterithadbeenforeclosedbyvirtueofadeedofsaleexecutedbetweenBonifacio
HilarioandthePNB.TheformerownerCorazonPengzontestifiedthatsheownedonlytwolotsLot427Bwithan
area of 841 square meters and Lot 427C with an area of 899 square meters with a total area of 1,740 square
meters.Theother2lotswereownedbyRubenOcampoandJuanMendoza.Shefurthertestifiedthatin1964atthe
timeofthepartitionoftheproperty,shedeclaredthepropertyforclassificationpurposesas"bakuran"locatedinthe
Poblacionandhadnoknowledgethattherewereotherthingsplantedinitexceptbananasandpomelos.
OnNovember27,1981,theCourtofAgrarianRelations(CAR)indeterminingwhetherornotrespondentBaltazaris
the tenant of the petitioners ruled that the land in question is not an agricultural landholding but plain "bakuran,"
hence,Baltazarisnotatenantontheland.
OnJanuary30,1982,theCourtofAppeals,however,remandedthecasetothelowercourtforfurtherproceedings
on the ground that the findings of the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) were not supported by substantial
evidence.
IncompliancewiththeorderoftheCourtofAppeals,theCARadmittedadditionalevidence.
On December 19, 1983, the CAR admitted the petitioners' third party complaint filed with leave against the
PhilippineNationalBank(PNB)whichstatesthatintheeventthatjudgmentwouldberenderedagainstthemunder

the original complaint, the PNB must contribute, indemnify, and reimburse the spouses the full amount of the
judgment.
Onthebasisoftheparties'andtheirwitnesses'affidavitscontainingdetailednarrationsoffactsanddocumentary
exhibits which served as their direct testimonies pursuant to PD 946, the CAR found that there was no tenancy
relationship existing between Baltazar and the former owner, Corazon Pengzon. The dispositive portion of the
decisionreads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring plaintiff not to be a tenant on the landholding
describedinthecomplaintandorderinghisejectmenttherefrom.
Thethirdpartycomplaintisherebydismissedforlackofmerit.(pp.2526,Rollo)
Again,respondentSalvadorBaltazarappealedtothethenIntermediateAppellateCourt(IAC).
TheIAC,however,reversedthedecisionoftheCARandheldthat:
... [T]he decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE, and another one entered declaring plaintiff
appellant ii leasehold tenant entitled to security of tenure on the land in question consisting of 1,740
squaremeters.Costsagainstdefendantsappellees.(p.31,Rollo)
Consequently,thespousesHilariosfiledthispetitionforreviewmakingthefollowingassignmentsoferrors:
I. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN DISTURBING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND
DECISION OF THE COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS (CAR) WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE.
II. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN SUBSTITUTION (SIC) THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF
CAR,OFITSOWNFINDINGS.
III.THEINTERMEDIATEAPPELLATECOURTERREDINNOTAFFIRMINGTHEDECISIONOFCAR,FINDING
THELOTSINQUESTIONWITHANAREAOF1,740SQUAREMETERSASRESIDENTIALLOTANDPRIVATE
RESPONDENTNOTTOBEATENANT.
WeagreewiththerespondentcourtwhenitstatedthatitcanaffirmonappealthefindingsoftheCARonlyifthereis
substantialevidencetosupportthem.However,afteracarefulconsiderationoftherecordsofthecase,wefindno
valid reason to deviate from the findings of the CAR. The evidence presented by the petitioners is more than
sufficient to justify the conclusion that private respondent Salvador Baltazar is not a tenant of the landholding in
question.
SalvadorBaltazarclaims:thatheisworkingonthelandinquestionpursuanttoa"kasunduan"executedbetween
himandSocorroBalagtas.Thecontractcoversatwohectareparcelofland.Thedisputedlandholdingisonly4,000
squaremetersmoreorless,althoughBaltazarclaimsthatthisareaisaportionofthetwohectaresinthecontract.
Hetestifiedthatsometimein1965,herelinquished1.5hectaresofthetwohectaressubjectofthe"kasunduan"to
NemesioOcampo,JuanMendoza,MiguelOcampoandMiguelViolaandwhatremainedunderhiscultivationwas
1/2 hectare owned by Corazon Pengson. He stated that when Socorro Balagtas died, no new contract was
executed.However,heinsiststhattheoldcontractwascontinuedbetweenCorazonPengsonandhimself.(Rollo,p.
23).
ThisclaimiscontrovertedbythetestimonyofCorazonPengsonherselfwhichwequoteasfollows:
QAfterthedeathofyourmotherin1965,whatstep,ifany,haveyoutaken,regardingthis
subjectlandholdingorafterthedeathofyourmotherhowdidyou
Q...administerthislandholdingin1963,1964,1965,1966,etc?
AWhatIdidistofixthetitleofownership,sir.
COURT:
QWhatelse?
ANoneother,YourHonor.
Q After the death of your mother in 1962, have you seen Mr. Salvador Baltazar in this
landholdinginquestion?
AYes,YourHonor.

QWhatwashedoing?
WITNESS:
AWeareneighbors,YourHonor,sometimeshevisitsandgoestoourplaceandweused
tomeetthere,YourHonor.
QWhatwasthepurposeofhisvisitandyourmeetinginthislandholding?
A Sometimes when he visits our place he tens us that there are some bananas to be
harvestedandsometimesthereareotherfruits,yourHonor.
Q You mean to say he stays in this subject landholding consisting of 7,000 square
meters?
AAfterthesurveyitturnedout
A...thatheisoccupyinganotherlotwhichIlearnedthatpropertydoesnotbelongtous,
YourHonor.
Qwhatwasyourarrangementregardinghisstayinthatlandholdingwhichyoudon'town?
AHesaidthathehadacontractwithmylatemotherwhichIdon'tknowinordernotto
causeanytroublebecauseIwillbebotheredinmybusiness,Itoldhimtocontinue,Your
Honor.
QWhatdoyoumeanwhenyou
COURT:
(continuing)
...toldhimtocontinue?
AWhatImeantosayisthathecanstaytherealthoughIdon'tunderstandthecontract
withmymother,YourHonor.
QWashepayingrentalsforhisstayinthatlot?
ANo,YourHonor(T.S.N.,pp.1519,hearingofAugust5,1981).
CorazonPengsonfurtherexplainedthatshedidnotreceiveanysharefromtheproduceofthelandfrom1964upto
thefilingofthecaseandshewouldnothaveacceptedanysharefromtheproduceofthelandbecausesheknew
prettywellthatshewasnolongertheownerofthelotsince1974whenitwasforeclosedbythebankandlateron
purchasedbythespousesHilarios.
WenotetheCAR'sfinding:
Tenancy relationship is indivisible. The twohectare land subject of plaintiff's alleged contract with
Socorro Balagtas having been parcelled into seven (7) and possession thereof
relinquished/surrendered in 1965 results in the termination of plaintiff's tenancy relationship with the
previousowner/landholder.Suchbeingthecase,hecannotnowclaimthatthelandholdinginquestion
consistingof4,000squaremeters,moreorless,isbeingcultivatedbyhimundertheoldcontract.The
ownerthereofCorazonPengsonhasnotenancyrelationshipwithhim(plaintiff).(p.25,Rollo)
From the foregoing, it is clear that Corazn Pengson did not give her consent to Baltazar to work on her land
consistingofonly1,740squaremeters.WeagreewiththeCARwhenitsaid:
The law accords the landholder the right to initially choose his tenant to work on his land. For this
reason, tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder
through lawful means and not by imposition or usurpation. So the mere cultivation of the land by
usurpercannotconferuponhimanylegalrighttoworkthelandastenantandenjoytheprotectionof
securityoftenureofthelaw(SpousesTiongsonv.CourtofAppeals,130SCRA482)(Ibid)
AndinthecaseofTuazonv.CourtofAppeals(118SCRA484),thisCourthadtheoccasiontoexplain:
xxxxxxxxx

... Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the
land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is
installed,and,asinthiscase,theirwrittenagreements,providedthesearecompliedwithandarenot
contrarytolaw,areevenmoreimportant."
Therespondentcourtruledthatthefactthatthelandinquestionislocatedinthepoblaciondoesnotnecessarily
makeitresidential.
The conclusion is purely speculative and conjectural, We note that the evidence presented by the petitioners
sufficientlyestablishesthatthelandinquestionisresidentialandnotagricultural.
As we stated in Tiongson v. Court of Appeals (supra) "the key factor in ascertaining whether or not there is a
landownertenantrelationshipinthiscaseisthenatureofthedisputedproperty."
Therecordsshowthatthedisputedproperty,only1,740squaremetersinarea,isactuallylocatedinthepoblacion
ofSanMiguel,Bulacannotfarfromthemunicipalbuildingandthechurch.ItisdividedintotwolotsLot427Bwith
an area of 841 square meters and Lot 427C with an area of 899 square meters. Two other lots which the
respondent claims to cultivate as "tenant" were originally owned by Ruben Ocampo and Juan Mendoza, not
CorazonPengson,throughwhomtherespondenttraceshisallegedtenancyrights.
RespondentBaltazarisafulltimegovernmentemployeeworkingintheBureauofPlantIndustry.
ThedisputedlotswereacquiredataforeclosuresalefromthePhilippineNationalBank.Theywerepurchasedas
residentiallotsandthedeedofsaledescribesthemas"residential."TheinspectionandappraisalreportofthePNB
classifiedthelandasresidential.Thedeclarationofrealpropertyonthebasisofwhichtaxesarepaidandapproved
bytheActingProvincialAssessorofBulacanclassifiesthelandasresidential.Thetaxdeclarationsshowthatthe
841 square meter lot is assessed for tax purposes at P25,236.00 while the 899 square meter lot is assessed at
P26,920.00.Theownerstatesthatthelandhasonlybananasandpomelosonit.Buteveniftheclaimoftheprivate
respondent that some corn was planted on the lots is true, this does not convert residential land into agricultural
land.
The presumption assumed by the appellate court, that a parcel of land which is located in a poblacion is not
necessarydevotedtoresidentialpurposes,iswrong.Itshouldbetheotherwayaround.Alotinsidethepoblacion
shouldbepresumedresidentialorcommercialornonagriculturalunlessthereisclearlypreponderantevidenceto
showthatitisagricultural.
Therespondentcourtalsofailedtonotethattheallegedtenantpaysnorentalorsharetothelandowners.Baltazar
madeavagueallegationthatheshared7030and5050oftheproduceinhisfavor.Theformerownerflatlydenied
thatsheeverreceivedanythingfromhim,
Therequirementssetbylawfortheexistenceofatenancyrelationship,towit:(1)Thepartiesarethelandholder
and tenant (2) The subject is agricultural land (3) The purpose is agricultural production and (4) There is
considerationhavenotbeenmetbytheprivaterespondent.
WeheldinTiongsonv.CourtofAppeals,citedabovethat:
Alltheserequisitesarenecessaryinordertocreatetenancyrelationshipbetweenthepartiesandthe
absence of one or more requisites do not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contra
distinguishedfromadejuretenant.Thisissobecauseunlessapersonhasestablishedhisstatusasa
dejuretenant,heisnotentitledtosecurityoftenurenorishecoveredbytheLandReformProgramof
theGovernmentunderexistingtenancylaws...(emphasissupplied).
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.ThedecisionoftherespondentCourtofAppealsisherebyREVERSED
andSETASIDEandthedecisionoftheCourtofAgrarianRelationsisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Fernan(Chairman),Alampay,Paras,Padilla,BidinandCortes,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation