SEVENTEENTH DIVISION

[CA-G.R. SP No. 39382.  January 18, 2002.]

PABLINA REYES BARRINUEVO, petitioner, vs. THE ADJUDICATION BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HEIRS OF THE LATE JUANITA LICMO VDA. DE BARRINUEVO AND TRINIDAD MANABAT VDA. DE LUNA, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AQUINO, J p:

          Trinidad Manabat Vda. de Luna (Trinidad) is the owner of a riceland with an area of 2.5 hectares situated in Sinalhan, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Her tenant over this land were the spouses Bonifacio and Juanita Barrinuevo (Juanita). Assisting the couple in farming the land were their four (4) children, Nicasio, Ponciano, Marcelo and Celerino Barrinuevo. A few years before 1983, Bonifacio got sick and since then, could not anymore work in the farm. It was Nicasio who principally farmed the land during the period of his father's incapacity until the latter's death on April 28, 1983.

          On June 27, 1987, Nicasio died and was survived by his wife Pablina Barrinuevo (Pablina) and their six children. The widow Pablina and her children Benedicto, Ricardo, Anatolio and Romeo continued farming the land. On March 3, 1989, without the knowledge, much less consent of her mother-in-law Juanita, Pablina entered into a Kasunduan Buwisan Sa Sakahan (Exhibit A) with landowner Trinidad in which the latter recognized Pablina as the tenant over said land. This document which was executed and notarized before the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Sta. Rosa was filed with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of that municipality.

          When Juanita learned about the execution of the Kasunduan Buwisan Sa Sakahan, she immediately filed on January 11, 1990 with DAR Provincial Adjudication Board, Region IV a Complaint for Annulment of Leasehold Contract and Recovery of Damages against her daughter-in-law Pablina and landowner Trinidad. This was docketed as DARAB Case No. IV-LA-398. In her Complaint, she claimed that when her husband Bonifacio died in 1983, she succeeded him in the leasehold tenancy of said land. She was assisted by her children, one of whom was Nicasio, the husband of Pablina. She further asserted that the Kasunduan Buwisan Sa Sakahan was fraudulently executed as it was based upon her alleged consent or waiver of rights which she never gave. With that contract, she was effectively and unlawfully divested of her rights as tenant leaseholder over said land.

          Landowner Trinidad did not traverse the Complaint but joined plaintiff Juanita in asking the DAR Provincial Adjudicator of the Laguna to annul said Kasunduan because she was misled by her co-defendant Pablina into believing that she had earlier secured the consent of plaintiff Juanita.

          On her part, defendant Pablina denied the material averments of the Complaint and claimed that upon the death of her father-in-law Bonifacio in 1983, her husband Nicasio became the bonafide tenant leaseholder of said land. In fact her husband was the only one together with his children who farmed the land, paid the irrigation fees and availed of the Masagana 99 Program from the Rural Bank of Sta. Rosa. After the death of her husband, she succeeded him as tenant leaseholder over said land. She too paid the irrigation fees.

          In due course and on October 18, 1993, the DAR Provincial Adjudicator rendered a Decision (Annex C, Amended Petition) with the following disposition:

          "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing JUDGMENT is hereby rendered:

a)      Declaring plaintiff Juanita Barrinuevo the lawful tenant farmer of the subject landholding;

b)      Declaring the Agricultural Leasehold Contract executed by and between the defendants null and void and ordered set aside;

c)      Declaring defendant Pablina Reyes Barrinuevo NOT tenant-farmer of the subject land;

d)      Ordering Defendant Pablina Barrinuevo and/or other persons acting for and in her behalf to vacate the subject land and surrender possession and cultivation to plaintiff herein.

          SO ORDERED."

          From the Decision, defendant Pablina appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) (Annex A, Petition) which was docketed therein as DARAB Case No. 2087. On December 12, 1995, the DARAB rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal and affirming the appealed Decision. Meanwhile, plaintiff Juanita died and her heirs represented by her eldest daughter Natalia Barrinuevo Barican substituted for her in this case.

          Petitioner Pablina is now before this Court in a Petition for Review contesting the Decision of the DARAB. Petitioner attributes to the DARAB the following alleged errors: a) in declaring the Kasunduan Buwisan Sa Sakahan as void for having been obtained through fraud; b) in holding that Juanita Vda. de Barrinuevo succeeded her late husband Bonifacio as tenant leaseholder of said land; c) in not declaring Nicasio Barrinuevo as the tenant-leaseholder upon Bonifacio's death in 1983; d) in not recognizing petitioner Pablina Vda. de Barrinuevo as the successor of her late husband in the leasehold tenancy of the said land; and e) in not applying the rule on substantial evidence or in not resolving the doubt in favor the petitioner.

          Petitioner Pablina contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the DARAB's finding that landowner Trinidad's consent on the execution of the Kasunduan Buwisan Sa Sakahan was vitiated by fraudulent misrepresentation of the petitioner. Petitioner asserts that being an illiterate woman, it was highly improbable that she misled a highly educated landowner into signing said Kasunduan in the presence even of the MARO of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Being a notarized document and registered with the authorized government office, its validity should be upheld. If petitioner was not personally cultivating the land, how come she had been tilling the land since her husband's death in 1987 up to the present?

          This Court is not persuaded.

          Where is the substantial evidence supporting petitioner's claim that her mother-in-law Juanita gave her consent to the execution of the Kasunduan and in effect waived her tenancy-leasehold rights over the land? Is it petitioner's testimony to that effect? If Juanita gave her consent to the Kasunduan, why was she not made to sign it or to execute a separate document waiving her tenancy rights? Why did she instead file a Complaint asserting said rights? The claim of Pablina and the denial of Juanita cancelled each other and nothing more is left, let alone a substantial evidence, to support Pablina's claim.

          But even assuming the landowner Trinidad executed said Kasunduan voluntarily, the end result is the same — that deed is void because it is a violation of law. Sec. 9, RA No. 3844 states:

          "In the case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within the month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: a) the surviving spouse; b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age; Provided, that in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year. Provided, further, that in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established."

          It is plain in the law and in the factual milieu of this case that upon Bonifacio's death, his surviving spouse, Juanita became the tenant leaseholder.

          The cultivation of the land by petitioner from 1987 up to the present was, therefore, through the tolerance of her mother-in-law. When petitioner got ambitious and secured that Kasunduan at the back of her mother-in-law, the latter withdrew her sufferance thereto so that from the time the action to annul said Kasunduan was filed, petitioner had no more colorable right to farm said land.

          This Court found no reversible error in the appealed Decision. On the contrary, said verdict is palpably based upon substantial evidence.

          WHEREFORE, for lack of prima facie merit, the Court DENIES due course to the petition and DISMISSES it.

          SO ORDERED.

          Cruz and Tolentino, JJ., concur.