Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ARROGATING On the other hand, respondents aver that petitioner and her family are Petitioner alleges that on July 15, 2004, she met with her counsel to
UPON ITSELF WHAT IS OTHERWISE DARS POWER TO DETERMINE wealthy, as they own numerous properties in Sta. Rosa, Laguna including engage the latter's legal services. During said meeting, counsel asked
WHETHER THE SUBJECT AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BECOME a luxurious house;[19] that, as such, petitioner cannot be considered as a petitioner about the date of receipt of the assailed CA Resolution.
RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL. landless tenant deserving the protection of agrarian reform laws; that the Petitioner replied that she received her copy on July 12, 2004. On July 20,
DARAB negated the highest degree of respect the factual findings of the 2004, counsel filed an Entry of Appearance with the CA.[30] On July 23,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT PARAD deserved; that petitioner's claims that Marciano repeatedly made 2004, petitioner through counsel filed the Motion for Extension of Time
EQUATED LAND RECLASSIFICATION WITH LAND CONVERSION FOR to File Petition for Review. On August 11, 2004, petitioner received a
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE PROPRIETY OF EJECTMENT OF AN verbal and written notices[20] for Leon to accept their lease rentals were copy of respondents' Opposition to the Motion. Thereafter, upon
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE. fraudulent designs to disguise the deliberate intent of petitioner not to verification, petitioner admitted that she received the copy of the CA
pay the lease rentals; that when Leon went to petitioner's residence, Resolution on July 7, 2004. Thus, her Motion was admittedly filed one day
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED petitioner did not pay the P10,000.00 due as lease rentals; that during late. Petitioner begs the indulgence of this Court for her oversight and
TO NOTE THAT AN EJECTMENT SUIT BASED ON A CLAIM OF NON- the hearing before the PARAD, when respondents' counsel requested mistake, attributing the same to her lack of education and old age.
PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTAL IS DIAMETRICALLY ANTITHETICAL TO THE that they be furnished a bank certificate as to the existence of said bank
CLAIM THAT THE SUBJECT LAND IS NO LONGER AGRICULTURAL BUT A deposits in Republic Planters Bank as of April 20, 1987 and October 1, Rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment
RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA EXEMPTED FROM 1987, petitioner herself commented, Nagdepositohotalaga kami of justice. If the application of the Rules would tend to frustrate rather
THE COVERAGE OF P.D. NO. 27, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657 AND EXECUTIVE sapangalannamin;[21] that the statement of petitioner is an admission than to promote justice, it is always within our power to suspend the
ORDER NO. 228. that bank deposits, if any, were made, not in the name of Leon as rules or except a particular case from their operation. Law and
jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with and petitioner was void in violation of P.D. No. 27, despite the conformity a land under agrarian reform, among others, are within the domain of
the procedural rules, even the most mandatory in character, mindful of of Leon. This issue was not resolved by the DARAB. the DAR Secretary.
the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the
parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[31] Finally, when the case reached the CA, the appellate court affirmed the Thus, Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
findings of the PARAD that petitioner and Marciano deliberately and in
Our recent ruling in Tanenglian v. Lorenzo[32] is instructive: bad faith did not pay the lease rentals. The CA, however, also held that SECTION 3. Agrarian Law Implementation Cases. The Adjudicator or the
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary the subject land had already become a residential, commercial and Board shall have no jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative
situations that merit liberal application of the Rules, allowing us, industrial area based on the vicinity map showing that the land was implementation of RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
depending on the circumstances, to set aside technical infirmities and surrounded by commercial and industrial establishments. Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as
give due course to the appeal. In cases where we dispense with the Without doubt, the PARAD acted without jurisdiction when it held that enunciated by pertinent rules and administrative orders, which shall be
technicalities, we do not mean to undermine the force and effectivity of the subject land was no longer covered by our agrarian laws because of under the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Office of the
the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently the retention rights of the respondents. The CA likewise acted without Secretary of the DAR in accordance with his issuances, to wit:
apply the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent jurisdiction when it ruled that the land had become non-agricultural
the commission of a grave injustice. Our judicial system and the courts based on a zoning ordinance of 1981 on the strength of a mere vicinity 3.1 Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under
have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict map. These rulings violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs,
enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such
given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a coverage;
controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an 3.2 Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or
In this case, petitioner was one day late in filing her Motion for Extension. administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases, disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;
To deny the Petition on this ground alone is too harsh a penalty for a days jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more 3.3 Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;
delay, taking into consideration the time, resources and effort spent by specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board 3.4 Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of Land
petitioner and even by the respondents, in order to pursue this case all (DARAB). Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside
the way to this Court. Thus, we dispense with the apparent procedural powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance,
defect and resolve this case on the merits. The ends of justice are better jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian recall, or cancellation of EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with the Register
served when cases are determined on the merits with all parties given full reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of of Deeds;
opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses rather than on the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and 3.5 Exercise of the right of retention by the landowner;
technicality or some procedural imperfections.[33] Natural Resources.[34] 3.6 Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA
6657;
The Petition is impressed with merit. In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Abdulwahid,[35] we held: 3.7 Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ)
Opinion No. 44 (1990);
In sum, there are two (2) ultimate issues that require resolution in this As held by this Court in Centeno v. Centeno [343 SCRA 153], "the DAR is 3.8 Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock,
case: vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian swine, and poultry raising;
1) Whether the CA erred in ruling that the subject land had already reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters 3.9 Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish pond and prawn farms from the
become residential, commercial and/or industrial, thus, excluded from involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program." The coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
the coverage of our laws on agrarian reform; and DARAB has primary, original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and 3.10 Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of Voluntary
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for
2) Whether the petitioner, as an agricultural tenant, failed to pay her incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian agricultural purposes;
lease rentals when the same fell due as to warrant her dispossession of Reform Program under R.A. No. 6657, E.O. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3.11 Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential,
the subject land. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses and purposes
laws and their implementing rules and regulations." including protests or oppositions thereto;
On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. 3.12 Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to
To recapitulate, the instant case sprang from a Complaint for Ejectment Under Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law), "agrarian dispute" is homelots;
based on Non-Payment of lease rentals. Though an allegation was made defined to include "(d) . . . any controversy relating to tenurial 3.13 Disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer-beneficiary's
by the respondents that the land had been declared, upon the arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise landholdings;
recommendation of the Human Settlements Committee, suitable for over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning 3.14 Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
commercial and industrial purposes, per Zoning Ordinance of 1981 of the farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, 3.15 Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its
Municipality of Sta. Rosa, no argument was advanced by respondents to fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of predecessors; or
support such allegation, in the same way that no prayer for the such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to 3.16 Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to
ejectment of the tenants was raised based on that allegation. The PARAD compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and it by the Secretary of the DAR.
held that petitioner should be ejected for non-payment of lease rentals. conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
It also ruled that the subject land is not covered by P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants Verily, there is an established tenancy relationship between petitioner
6657, and E.O. No. 228, not on the basis of the allegation in the stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, and respondents in this case. An action for Ejectment for Non-Payment of
complaint, but on the respondents' right of retention. landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee." lease rentals is clearly an agrarian dispute, cognizable at the initial stage
by
On appeal, the DARAB concentrated on the issue of petitioners failure to Simply put, agrarian disputes, as defined by law and settled in the PARAD and thereafter by the DARAB.[36] But issues with respect to
pay lease rentals. When the DARAB ruled that petitioner and Marciano jurisprudence, are within the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the retention rights of the respondents as landowners and the
did not deliberately fail to pay said rentals, respondents raised a new the PARAD and the DARAB, while issues of retention and non-coverage of exclusion/exemption of the subject land from the coverage of agrarian
issue in their Omnibus Motion that the transaction between Adoracion reform are issues not cognizable by the PARAD and the DARAB, but by
the DAR Secretary because, as aforementioned, the same are Agrarian agricultural lessors.[41] This proceeds from the principle that a tenancy went to the point of seeking government intervention in order to address
Law Implementation (ALI) Cases. relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to security of tenure. their problems with respondents. Absent such deliberate and willful
Petitioner can only be ejected from the agricultural landholding on refusal to pay lease rentals, petitioner's ejectment from the subject land
It has not escaped our notice that, as this case progressed and reached a grounds provided by law.[42] Section 36 of the same law pertinently is not justified.
higher level in the hierarchy of tribunals, the respondents would, provides:
invariably, proffer an additional theory or defense, in order to effect WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of
petitioners eviction from the land. As a consequence, the simple issue of Sec. 36.Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. Notwithstanding any the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60640 is hereby REVERSED and
ejectment based on non-payment of rentals has been muddled. agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform
agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his Adjudication Board (DARAB) dated June 24, 1998 in DARAB Case No.
Proof necessary for the resolution of the issue of the land being covered landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the 2203 is REINSTATED without prejudice to the rights of respondent-
by, or excluded/exempted from, P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. 6657, and other Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is spouses Leon and Aurora Carpo to seek recourse from the Office of the
pertinent agrarian laws, as well as of the issue of the right of retention of shown that: Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary on the other issues they
the respondents, was not offered in evidence. Worse, the PARAD raised. No costs.
resolved the issue of retention even if it was not raised by the x xxx
respondents at that level, and even if the PARAD had no jurisdiction over SO ORDERED.
the same. (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due:
Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop
Likewise, the CA ruled that the land had ceased being agricultural on the failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous
basis of a mere vicinity map, in open disregard of the Doctrine of Primary event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although
Jurisdiction, since the issue was within the province of the Secretary of the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby
DAR. extinguished;
x xx
We take this opportunity to remind the PARAD and the CA that courts of Respondents failed to discharge such burden. The agricultural tenant's
justice have no power to decide a question not in issue. A judgment that failure to pay the lease rentals must be willful and deliberate in order to
goes beyond the issues, and purports to adjudicate something on which warrant his dispossession of the land that he tills.
the parties were not heard, is extra-judicial, irregular and invalid. This
norm applies not only to courts of justice, but also to quasi-judicial Petitioner's counsel opines that there appears to be no decision by this
Court on the matter; he thus submits that we should use the CA decision
bodies such as the PARAD. Accordingly, premature and irregular were the in Cabero v. Caturna. This is not correct. In an En Banc Decision by this
PARAD ruling on the retention rights of the respondents, and the CA Court in Roxas y Cia v. Cabatuando, et al.,[43] we held that under our law
decision on the non-agricultural character of the land subject of this and jurisprudence, mere failure of a tenant to pay the landholder's share
controversy -- these issues not having passed the scrutiny of the DAR does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former when
Secretary -- are premature and irregular.[37] there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay. This
ruling has not been overturned.
Thus, we cannot allow ourselves to fall into the same error as that
committed by the PARAD and the CA, and resolve the issue of the non-
agricultural nature of the subject land by receiving, at this stage, pieces of The term deliberate is characterized by or results from slow, careful,
evidence and evaluating the same, without the respondents having first thorough calculation and consideration of effects and consequences.[44]
introduced them in the proper forum. The Office of the DAR Secretary is The term willful, on the other hand, is defined as one governed by will
in a better position to resolve the issues on retention and without yielding to reason or without regard to reason.[45]
exclusion/exemption from agrarian reform coverage, being the agency
lodged with such authority inasmuch it possesses the necessary expertise We agree with the findings of the DARAB that it was not the fault of
on the matter.[38] petitioner that the lease rentals did not reach the respondents because
the latter chose to ignore the notices sent to them. To note, as early as
Likewise, we refrain from entertaining the issue raised by respondents November 10, 1986, Marciano executed an Affidavit[46] stating that Leon
that petitioner and her family are not landless tenants and are therefore refused to receive the respective lease rentals consisting of 37 cavans for
not deserving of any protection under our laws on agrarian reform, November 1985 and July 1986. For 1987, Marciano wrote Leon two
because fairness and due process dictate that issues not raised in the letters[47] informing him of the availability of the lease rentals for April
proceedings below should not be raised for the first time on appeal.[39] and October of the same year. On April 27, 1988, Marciano sought DAR
intervention and mediation with respect to the execution of a leasehold
On the second issue, we rule in the negative. contract and the fixing of the leasehold rentals.[48]Meetings were set but
respondents failed to attend.[49] The dispute was referred to the
Under Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844,[40] as amended, coupled barangay but the parties failed to amicably settle.[50]
with the fact that the respondents are the complainants themselves, the
burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment These factual circumstances negate the PARAD findings of Marcianos and
of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee rests upon the respondents as petitioner's deliberate and willful intent not to pay lease rentals. Good
faith was clearly demonstrated by Marciano and petitioner when,
because respondents refused to accept the proffered payment, they even
FIRST DIVISION May 2008. Respondents averred that they had no intention to violate the they had previously submitted the matter involved herein with the
[ G.R. No. 191479, September 21, 2015 ] said rule because they were of the belief that the motion for various DAR offices.
JESUS VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES PATERNO C. CRUZ AND reconsideration would be received by respondents' counsel on the
ROSARIO CRUZ, RESPONDENTS. following day, 6 May 2008.[7] Respondents counter that not all the elements of agricultural tenancy are
present in this case. Petitioner could not have succeeded Navarro as
DECISION During the pendency of the petition before the appellate court, tenant of respondents because he is not among those listed under
PEREZ, J.: petitioner became the registered owner of the subject land under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844. Respondents cite the Court of Appeals
Before us is a Petition for Review of the Decision[1] dated 12 August 2009 Original Certificate of Title No. EP-992-C.[8] observation that it has not come across any official document from the
and Resolution[2] dated 24 February 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA DAR expressly identifying petitioner as Navarro's successor. Respondents
G.R. SP No. 105140 which ordered the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Before petitioner could inform the appellate court of this significant insist that a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.
Malolos City, Branch 79 to assume jurisdiction over the complaint in Civil development, the Court of Appeals, on 12 August 2009, found merit in
Case No. 264-M-2007 for recovery of possession with damages. respondents' petition. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' The core of this dispute is the question of whom between the DARAB and
Decision reads: the RTC, has jurisdiction over the case.
The facts are as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The April 15, 2008 Order of the Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
Respondents Spouses Paterno and Rosario Cruz are the registered Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Branch 79, is hereby REVERSED and
owners of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Sta. Monica in Hagonoy, SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is hereby ordered to assume Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested
Bulacan with an area of four hectares, more or less, and covered by Tax jurisdiction over the case and act on it with dispatch.[9] with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
Declaration No. 020-10-022-11-027. On 7 May 2007, respondents filed a matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
Complaint for Recovery of Possession with Accounting and Damages The appellate court ruled that petitioner failed to establish tenancy involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
against petitioner Jesus Velasquez. Respondents alleged in their relationship between the parties. According to the appellate court, the under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA)
Complaint that petitioner's father-in-law, Bernabe Navarro (Navarro) was elements of consent and sharing of harvest are lacking. Moreover, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
a tenant in said lot until 6 April 1985 when the latter relinquished his petitioner was held as unqualified to be a successor-tenant by virtue of x xxx
tenancy rights by virtue of a SinumpaangSalaysay; that no other person hereditary succession because he is not among those listed under Section Rule II, Section 1(1.1) of the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure:
was installed as tenant of the farmland; that they discovered that 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, he being only a relative by affinity.
petitioner entered the farmland without their knowledge and consent; RULE II
that from 1985 up to the time of the filing of the complaint, petitioner In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner claimed absolute ownership
never paid a single centavo as rent for the use of the land; and that they over the disputed land by virtue of the issuance of an emancipation Jurisdiction of the Board and its Adjudicators
leased the farmland to a certain Godofredo Tosco in 1995 but petitioner patent in his favor and the corresponding registration of the same With
refused to vacate the property. Respondents prayed for the surrender of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on 19 September 2008. Resultantly, SECTION 1. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. The Adjudicator
possession of the property to them and for accounting and damages.[3] petitioner argued that the issue of tenancy is now immaterial and any shall have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and
and all matters relating to the identification, qualification or adjudicate the following cases:
In his Answer with Motion to Dismiss,, petitioner contended that, disqualification of petitioner as a farmer-beneficiary, as well as the
jurisdiction pertains to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication validity of his emancipation patent are in the nature of an agrarian 1.1 The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,
Board (DARAB) because in the instant controversy is an agrarian dispute. dispute, hence, beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands
Petitioner asserted that he was assisting Navarro in tilling the land since covered by Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, otherwise known as the
1975. He claimed that he continued working on the land after the death On 24 February 2010, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and other related agrarian
of Navarro. Petitioner defended his non-payment of rentals due to the reconsideration for lack of merit.[10] laws;
fact that the subject land has lost its suitability for agricultural Based on the above-cited rules, only DARAB can adjudicate an agrarian
production, thus, his non-payment is not a ground for dispossession. As a Aggrieved, petitioner file d the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari dispute.
further justification to the non-payment of rentals, petitioner emphasized contending that the award of an emancipation patent in the name of
that since the implementation of the Operation Land Transfer, he is petitioner is the best proof that Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this wise:
deemed to be the owner of the subject land and respondents had no has identified him as the bonafide successor of his deceased father-in- x xxx
more right to demand rentals. Petitioner claimed that he was identified law, Navarro. Petitioner adds that by becoming the farmer-beneficiary (d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial
as a farmer-beneficiary and has since been paying amortizations to Land and registered owner of the subject lot, the issue of the existence or non- arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise,
Bank of the Philippines (LBP).[4] existence of tenancy relationship between the parties has become moot over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
and academic. Petitioner maintains that since Original Certificate of Title farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
On 15 April 2008, the RTC issued an Order[5] dismissing the case for want No. EP-992-C was issued pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
of jurisdiction. On 27 June 2008, the trial court denied the motion for and Operation Land Transfer, any and all actions pertaining to the right such tenurial arrangements.
reconsideration filed by respondents for violation of the three-day notice and obligation of petitioner in connection thereto is vested in DARAB
rule.[6] which has primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
Similarly, any and all matters relating to the identification, qualification or under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals disqualification of petitioner as a farmer-beneficiary over the subject land from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
arguing that the elements of tenancy, which would vest jurisdiction on and the validity of his emancipation patent over the same land are in the beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
the DARAB, were not sufficiently established. Respondents also assailed nature of an agrarian dispute beyond the jurisdiction of the RTC. Lastly, farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
the denial of their motion for reconsideration for violation of the three- petitioner asserts that respondents had clearly recognized the authority lessee.
day notice rule. Respondents explained that the motion for of the DAR to take cognizance of the dispute between the parties when
reconsideration was served on 5 May 2008 and the hearing was set on 9
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be tenancy Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or death of the tenant-beneficiary[,] be free to choose from among
relationship between the parties. Incapacity of the Parties. - In case of death or permanent incapacity of themselves one who shall have sole ownership and cultivation of the
the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall land, xxx Provided, however, That [sic] the surviving spouse shall be given
Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can first preference; otherwise, in the absence or due to the permanent
and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor incapacity of the surviving spouse, priority shall be determined among
the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the heirs according to age (emphases and underlining omitted).
relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant
cultivating the land. The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the Moreover, the ministry memorandum circular specifically provides that:
presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give order of their age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent
rise to security of tenure.[11] incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, 1. Succession to the farmholding covered by Operation Land Transfer
such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: shall be governed by the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the
In order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish all its Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise Philippines subject to the following limitations:
indispensable elements, viz.: (1) the parties are the landowner and the his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in 2.
tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is accordance with the order herein established. a. The farmholding shall not be partitioned or fragmented.
an agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the b. The ownership and cultivation of the farmholding shall ultimately be
agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. consolidated in one heir who possesses the following qualifications:
tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the Petitioner, a relative by affinity of Navarro, is, to the Court of Appeals,
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. All these requisites are not qualified to succeed as tenant. (1) being a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer's
necessary to create a tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or cooperative;
more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant.[12] The Court of Appeals cited additional reasons, based on standing rulings
and administrative issuances, which support petitioner's disqualification (2) capable of personally cultivating the farmholding; and
The Court of Appeals anchored its ruling on the absence of the consent as successor of the deceased tenant, thus:
and sharing of harvests as indispensable elements of a tenancy (3) willing to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a tenant-
relationship. We agree with the appellate court's disquisition. The Neither can this Court recognize him as the bona fide successor of beneficiary.
appellate court held in this wise: Navarro's Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) award under P.D. 27. The
ruling in the case of Tumol vs. Esguerra, G.R. No. 150646, July 15, 2005, is c. Such owner-cultivator shall compensate the other heirs to the extent
It appears that the element of consent and sharing of harvests are clearly instructive: of their respective legal interest in the land, subject to the payment of
lacking. [Petitioner] merely alleged that he was verbally asked by all the whatever outstanding obligations of the deceased tenant-beneficiary.
heirs of Guillerma Coronel to continue working on the land. The fact that Pursuant to the provisions of the Presidential Decree No. 27, and the
[petitioner] was allowed to stay on the property does not mean that Policy of the Government laid down in the Code of Agrarian Reforms to Again, being a relative only by affinity of the deceased Bernabe Navarro,
[respondents] impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family size farm as the [petitioner]cannot lay claim as his successor. The (c)ourt cannot accept
with [petitioner]. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will basis of agricultural development of the country, the following rules and his assertion that he was already identified by the DAR as the successor
not ipso facto make one a dejure tenant. regulations shall be observed in the event of death of a tenant- on the basis of land amortization receipts. Said receipts merely show that
x xxx beneficiary: [petitioner] was the payor but these do not, in any way, recognize him as
In this case, [petitioner]could not present any evidence showing that the tenant-beneficiary of the land. It could be that it was in the account
[respondents] had recognized him as tenant. The other pieces of Succession to the farmholding covered by Operation Land Transfer, shall of Bernabe Navarro. The [c]ourt has not come across any official
evidence submitted by the [petitioner] do not prove the alleged tenancy be governed by the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the document from the DAR that expressly identified him as Bernabe
relationship as the certifications he presented could only show that he is Philippines subject to the following limitations: Navarro's successor.[14]
the actual occupant of the land, a fact recognized by the [respondents] x xxx
and the reason why they instituted an action for recovery of possession. 2. For the purpose of determining who among the heirs shall be the sole We also note the appellate court's reference to the well-entrenched
Being an actual occupant of the land is definitely different from being a owner-cultivator, the following rules shall apply: principle that the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter on the
tenant thereof. x xxx existence of the action is determined by the material allegations of the
b. Where there are several heirs, and in the absence of extra-judicial complaint and the law, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is
More importantly, [petitioner] was not able to show that he shared his settlement or waiver of rights in favor of one heir who shall be the sole entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.[15]
harvests, not even once, with the [respondents]. He just reasoned out owner and cultivator, the heirs shall within one month from death of the A court does not lose its jurisdiction over a case by the simple expedient
that he was not able to remit his dues because the land became tenant-beneficiary be free to choose from among themselves one who of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy
unproductive due to the intrusion of saline waters. No explanation was shall have sole ownership and cultivation of the land, subject to relationship between the parties. The court continues to have the
offered to show that he exerted efforts to make the land productive for Paragraph 1(b) and (c) hereof: Provided, however, That the surviving authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine
agricultural production. Instead, he took the opportunity to release spouse shall be given first preference; otherwise, in the absence or due whether or not it has jurisdiction, and, if, after hearing, tenancy is shown
bangus fingerlings but without giving any share of this income to the to the permanent incapacity of the surviving spouse, priority shall be to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.[16]
[respondents].[13] determined among the heirs according to age.
In fact, Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978 also It was mentioned by the appellate court that the Complaint alleged the
According to the Court of Appeals, petitioner's claim that he succeeded provides: following material facts:
Navarro as tenant is questionable. Section 9 of RA 3844 provides an x xxx
exclusive enumeration of those who are qualified to succeed to the Where there are several heirs, and in the absence of extra judicial 3. Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of farmland located at
leasehold rights of a deceased or incapacitated tenant, to wit: settlement or waiver of rights in favor of the one heir who shall be the Brgy. Sta. Monica, Hagonoy, Bulacan with an area of four (4) hectares,
sole owner and cultivator, the heirs shall[,] within one month from the more or less, under Tax Declaration Property Index No. 020-10-022-11-
027, which they acquired from Guillerma Coronel Vda. de Cruz, plaintiff The averments of respondents' complaint, taken as true, establish the
Paterno's mother. x xx nature of the action which the court has jurisdiction to determine,
precisely, whether or not tenancy exist between the parties. Thus did
4. For a long period of time, the said farmland was tenanted by Bernabe respondents as plaintiffs aver that they are the registered owners of the
Navarro; subject property which they acquired from Guillerma Coronel Vda. de
Cruz; that their tenant, Navarro, relinquished his tenancy rights on 6 April
5. On April 6, 1985, tenant Bernabe Navarro voluntarily surrendered his 1985, and since then, no one was installed as tenant; that in 1995,
tenancy rights over the aforesaid lot through a SinumpaangSalaysay. x xx respondents were dispossessed of their property when petitioner refused
the entry of and surrender the possession of farmland to Mr.Godofredo
6. After Bernabe Navarro relinquished his tenancy rights in favor of Tosco, a lessee of respondents. Jurisdiction pertains to the RTC where an
[respondents'] predecessor-in-interest, no other person was installed as ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of
tenant of the farmland; realty independently of title takes place.
7. Not long thereafter, [respondents] discovered that [petitioner] Jesus The issuance of the emancipation patent was brought to the attention of
Velasquez entered the farmland without their consent and without the the Court of Appeals through a motion for reconsideration, which was
knowledge of their predecessor-in-interest. Thus, they confronted denied by the appellate court and rightfully so. Our discussion is and
[petitioner] for his actuations. should be limited only on the issue of tenancy, which is determinative of
jurisdietion. The validity of the emancipation patent, which may or may
8. However, from 1985 up to the present, [petitioner] Jesus Velasquez not involve tenancy, cannot be decided by this Court. We can only
never paid even a single centavo to [respondents] as rent for the use of resolve said issue if brought before us on appeal and only after the
the land. Worse, [petitioner] converted the farmland into a fishpond exhaustion of administrative remedies.[19]
without notice and consent of the [respondents] or their predecessor-in-
interest;
9. Sometime in 1988 and 1989 Fernando Cruz and Jose Cruz, brothers of
[Paterno Cruz], attempted to visit the farmland but they were menacingly
denied entry by the [petitioner];