Hilario vs IAC

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ decision declaring Salvador
Baltazar a leasehold tenant entitled to security of tenure on a parcel of land.

Facts: Salvador Baltazar filed a verified complaint with the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR)
alleging that he had been in continuous possession as a share tenant of a parcel of land previously
owned by Socorro Vda. de Balagtas, and that the spouses Hilario have been threatening him from
entering and cultivating the land. Baltazar claims that he became the tenant of Soccoro’s 2
hectare land by virtue of a “Kasunduan” executed between them, stating that he built his own
house on such land and planted “halaman”, the produce of which was divided 70-30 and 50-50
in his favor. When Socorro died, Baltazar claims that he gave the share pertaining to the
landowner to her daughter, Corazon Pengson. On the other hand, Petitioners aver that they
acquired the land from PNB after it was foreclosed. Former owner, Corazon Pengson, testified
that at the time of partition, she declared the property for classification purposes as “bakuran”
and had no knowledge that there were other things planted except bananas and pomelos. The
CAR ruled that the subject land is not agricultural, but plain bakuran hence, Baltazar is not a
tenant. However, the CA remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings on the
ground that the findings of CAR were not supported by substantial evidence. Eventually, CAR
found no tenancy relationship between Baltazar and Pengson. Baltazar appealed to IAC, and the
IAC reversed the decision of CAR. Hence this instant petition for review filed by the spouses
Hilario.

Issue: Did the IAC erred in not affirming the decision of CAR?

Ruling: Yes. The CAR is correct in ruling that Baltazar is not a tenant of the landholding. The
partition of the subject lot resulted in the termination of the plaintiff’s tenancy relationship with
the previous landowner. Baltazar cannot claim that the landholding in questions is being
cultivated by him under the old contract. The law accords the landholding 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 the usurper cannot confer upon him any
legal right to work the land as tenant and enjoy the protection of security of tenure of the law.
Therefore, Corazon Pengson had no tenancy relationship with him.

Disposition: Wherefore, the petition is granted. The decision of the CA is reversed and set aside
and the decision of the CAR is affirmed.