THIRD DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 46748. January 26, 1999.]
PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, RONEMAR FELIZARDO, PERFECTO ADALID and VENERACION ADALID, petitioners, vs. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LUNA, J p:
Petitioners assail in this petition for review the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Diliman, Quezon City, in DARAB Case No. 4983, affirming the decision of the Regional Adjudicator, Province of Misamis Occidental, Gango, Ozamis City, in DARAB Case No. X(07)818:
"1. Ordering the immediate reinstatement of complainant as the Bonafide tenant-lessee to the subject landholding;
"2. Ordering the cancellation of the existing leasehold contract between defendants and one Asuncion Espinosa, and in lieu thereof, the execution of a leasehold contract as between herein complainant and defendants;
"3. Ordering the respondents to account for and pay to the complainant his share or the amount in excess of his rentals after deducting the expenses in the harvest of November, 1995 and February 1996 based on the "pesadas" from the crops buyers;
"4. Ordering respondents to pay the amount of P10,000 as in Attorney's Fees and the amount of P5,000 as litigation expenses."
Pertinent portion of the assailed decision is quoted below:
"Complainant-Appellee Siegfredo Fernandez is one of the children of the late Policarpio Fernandez, who during his lifetime is acknowledged to both tenant over one and one-half (1.5) hectares of cocoland owned by Defendant-Appellant Veneranda Adalid located at Barangay Garang, Tangub City.
In his verified complaint, Complainant-Appellee Fernandez alleged that since 1981 when his father was already 74 years old, and being the only member of his family then living with his father (Policarpio), he assumed the tenancy works of his father. When his father died on August 31, 1995 at the age of 87 years, he succeeded as a tenant of the farmland, observing as he did the sharing of copra harvest at one-half (½) — two-thirds (2/3) in favor of the landowner. Even as Complainant-Appellee harvested the coconuts for the last time on September 5, 1995, the Defendants-Appellants filed criminal complaints for Usurpation and Qualified Theft in the months of October and November, 1995 before the Office of the City Prosecutor at Tangub City. Thereafter, on November 6, 1995, Defendants-Appellants, through hired laborers, harvested the coconut farm thereby effectively ejecting the Complainant-Appellee from his alleged tenanted landholdings, thus, complaint.
On the other hand, Defendants-Appellants denied the tenancy status of Complainant-Appellee and asserted that while the late Policarpio Fernandez was concededly the tenant of the land, he continued to be such until his death in August 31, 1995. Thereafter, as owners of the land they exercised their option and right to choose one Asuncion Fernandez Espinosa, the second eldest daughter of the late Policarpio Fernandez to be the successor-tenant of the subject landholding. That pursuant to their choice of a successor-tenant, an appointment as such tenant was duly issued to Asuncion F. Espinosa on September 22, 1995, copy of which was furnished the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) at Tangub City. Thereafter on October 24, 1995, a leasehold contract was executed and entered into by Defendant-Appellant Pevet Adalid Felizardo and Asuncion F. Espinosa. It is, therefore, contended that by choice, pursuant to Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3844, the defendants-landowners preferred Asuncion Espinosa over the Complainant-Appellee. The latter then would have no cause to complain, and the filing of criminal cases against him are valid actions to protect the rights of landowners. Defendants-Appellants concluded.
Issue: Is Complainant-Appellee Siegfredo Fernandez a bonafide tenant by succession of his father?
After a painstaking analysis of the records of his case, the Board finds the contention of the appellee with merit. The contention of Complainant-Appellee is that, having worked with his tenant-father on the subject landholding, and having personally assumed the cultivation of the land since 1981 when his father was already 74 years old and up to his father's death in 1995, without the objection of the Defendants-Appellants; that having shared the copra produce with the landowners since then, and up to his last harvest in September 1995; that being the only immediate member of the tenant's family working on the land while the others are all settled elsewhere, therefore, he should be considered the successor-tenant of the landholding, notwithstanding the appointment of his elder sister Asuncion Espinosa as tenant by the Defendants-Appellants.
The law limits the right to succeed the deceased tenant members of his immediate farm household who are related to him within the second degree of consanguinity and who shall cultivate the land personally, provided that if the deceased tenant has two or more heirs qualified to succeed him, the landholder shall have the right to choose from among them who should succeed. Moreover, Sec. 5(a) of R.A. 1199 provides; "Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the tenant and such other person or persons whether related to the tenant or not who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him operate the farm enterprise."
The record will show that when Policarpio Fernandez could no longer personally attend to his works, it was his son, the Complainant-Appellee, who was personally attending to the cultivation of the farm without the objection of the Defendants-Appellants for almost fifteen (15) years since 1981. The element of personal cultivation of the land that is essential in establishing a landlord-tenant is absent in establishing a landlord-tenant is absent in the relationship between Defendants-Appellants' landholdings. In the case of Delos Reyes vs. Espineli (30 SCRA 574) absent the element of personal cultivation, one cannot be a tenant even if he is so designated in the written agreement of the parties.
This fact alone will show that Complainant-Appellee was the only immediate member of the farm household capable and qualified to work on the land as he did during the lifetime of his father.
The Criminal Cases filed against Complainant-Appellee should be dismissed. This will take up much of the time and attention of the Municipal Court to the prejudice of other matters more pressing cases pending therein. Furthermore, the complaint will have to incur unnecessary expenses to finance his legal battle against the defendants if proceedings in the court below were to resume. The remand of the case to the lower court or the resumption of the criminal proceedings is not in the interest of justice. Court litigants have described the long and unnecessary delay in the resolution of their cases and the consequent costs of such litigations. The poor, particularly, are victims of this unjust judicial daeble. Impoverished, they must deal with unjust legal procrastination which they can only interpret as harassment or intimidation brought about by their poverty, deprivation and despair. It must be the mission of the Board to remove the misperceptions that aggrieved people may have of the nature of the dispensation of justice in our Country. In addition, the Complainant-Appellee cannot be held criminally liable for qualified theft in gathering and harvesting coconut fruits from the landholding in question because, as a legal occupant or possessor of the land, he owns said crops including the fruits thereof. The Complainant-Appellee's possession of the land is not illegal or in bad faith, because he was allowed to enter and occupy the premises. The Complainant-Appellee worked the land in dispute with the consent of the Defendants-Appellants.
Petitioners submit that the issues to be resolved in the petition are whether or not:
I.
RESPONDENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A TENANT AND ENTITLED TO SUCCEED TO THE TENANCY RIGHTS OF HIS FATHER POLICARPIO FERNANDEZ.
II.
PETITIONERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO AMONG THE CHILDREN OF THE LATE POLICARPIO FERNANDEZ SHOULD SUCCEED HIM AS TENANT OF THE LANDHOLDING.
Petitioners insist that respondent's act of cultivating the agricultural land, covered by Tax Dec. 38100 in the name of Veranda Adalid, containing an area of two (2) hectares, more or less, situated at Garang, Tangub City, and planted with coconut and corn, from 1981 up to the death of his father Policarpio Fernandez on August 31, 1995, did not ripen into a tenancy relationship between him and petitioners because respondent's act of helping or aiding his father who is the bona fide tenant of the land during his lifetime did not constitute tenancy relations, citing Section 5-(a) of RA 1199. A bona fide tenant can be aided in his tenancy duties by any member of his household. By tolerating and not objecting to respondent's acts of simply helping and aiding his father in his tenancy duties do not make him a tenant. The appointment and institution of Asuncion Fernandez-Espinosa, one of the children of Policarpio Fernandez, as their tenant is based on Section 9, of the Code of Agrarian Reform, and was done with the consent and agreement of all the Heirs of the late Policarpio Fernandez, except for respondent. Such tenancy relationship is based on trust and confidence and partakes of a fiduciary relationship between the landowner and the tenant.
Baranda v. Baguio, 189 SCRA 194, enumerates the essential requisites of tenancy relationship, and which must concur in order to create mush relationship between the parties: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests.
Petitioners have not disputed that since 1981, when Policarpio Fernandez, the bona fide tenant, was already 74 years old, respondent, the son, assumed his father's as such up to his father's death on August 31, 1995. He cultivated the farm and the landowner alleged his to do so. As admitted on pages 7 to 8 of children petition, respondent, one among the nine (9) children of the Policarpio Fernandez, was the only one helping and aiding his father in cultivating the land in Garang, Tangub City, where the farm is located, while his brothers and sisters, including Asuncion Espinosa live elsewhere. Respondent continued working in the landholding even after his father died in 1995 until he was ejected on November 6, 1995. Respondent, therefore, is entitled to "security of tenure", in accordance with Section 7, of RA 119, as amended, have the right to continue working on the land and he any not be ejected therefrom except as provided for by law (De Jesus vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 559; Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 880).
Petitioners asseveration that the appointment and institution by them of Asuncion Fernandez Espinosa as the successor of her late father Policarpio Fernandez, is proof that they did not consent to respondent to continue within on the landholding, is of no consent. She was appointed as tenant, vice Policarpio Fernandez, only on September 27, 1995 (Annex 2), while respondent had been working and helping his tenant-father since 1981, continued to do so after his father died on August 31, 1995, and up on or before November 6, 1995, when he was ejected from the landholding. And he shared the copra a produce with the landowners up to his last harvest in September 1998, attested by the residents of Barangay Garang, Tangub City, including Captain Artemio Cañas. Among Policarpio Fernandez' nine (9) children, respondent appears to be the more immediate member of the family. He is the only one who lived with his father and helped him in his farming activities (De Jesus vs. IAC, supra). And as mentioned in the decision of DARAB Province of Misamis Occidental, Gango Ozamis City, the rights accorded to the late Policarpio Fernandez was not transferred to anyone of his children during his later years but his son Siegfredo. His father, then already 74 years old in 1981, even entrusted to him the cultivation of the farm. If petitioners were truly minded in having someone else to work on the land other than respondent, when the old incapacitated Policarpio could no longer personally attend to his works, then they should have opportunely exercised their right to choose the tenant-successor in replacement of Policarpio Fernandez. But they did not do so and instead allowed respondent to continuously work on the land for almost 15 years.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed, and the decision is UPHELD.
SO ORDERED.