NINTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 37954. October 10, 1997.]
RICARDO MANALASTAS, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, and JULIA RELUCIO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LUNA, J p:
This is a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner prays that the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board rendered on November 9, 1993 and the Order issued on June 29, 1995, in DARAB Case 0145, be nullified, on the ground that the decision is contrary to the testimonial and documentary evidences presented.
Pertinent portion of the decision is quoted hereunder:
"xxx xxx xxx
"The evidence shows that the farmholding was entrusted to the respondent due to the trust and confidence reposed upon him by the petitioner, for the former is the godson of the petitioner's father. Obviously, this special relationship were the reason why the respondent had been able to get cash advances from the petitioner which the latter had subsequently asked the former to liquidate. These advances were utilized by the respondent to purchase farm inputs and defray other expenses.
"from the records it appears that the respondent is just a usufructuary of the property. This is the import of Exhibit "5" relied upon by the respondent. In fact, in one of the several items indicated therein, there appears an amount for "pataba" (fertilizers) in 1984 with an accompanying phrase "para sa pataba hindi nagamit". Obviously, this promoted petitioner's request for an accounting when she wrote: "Ipadala mo kaya and listahan mo sa taon taon." However, since the respondent failed to render an accounting of the sums received by him, the petitioner having lost her confidence, if not her patience, on the respondent, was compelled to file the present case for the return of the landholding.
"The respondent's self-service allegation that he had been sharing the harvest with the petitioner on a fifty-fifty (50-50) ratio is not an evidence. It has been held that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence (Top-World Manufacturing, Inc. vs. ECED, S.S., 138 SCRA 118; Antonio vs. Estrella, 156 SCRA 68).
"Moreover, our courts have consistently held that for a valid tenancy relationship to exist, the following requisites must concur:
"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 harvest.
"All the foregoing requisites must concur and the absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws. (Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al., 168 SCRA 247; Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 169 SCRA 383, Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA 136; Tiongson vs. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA 482; emphasis supplied).
"The respondent's failure to prove that there was sharing of the harvest is logically a failure to prove his assertion that he is a share-tenant. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there was an implied share-tenancy relationship in the case, the respondent's failure to give the petitioner's share inspite of her letter-reminder (Exhibit "5") is a ground for his ejectment, there being no evidence to show that his inability to give the landowner's share was caused by crop failure due to fortuitous events. (Sec. 36, par. 6, thereof R.A. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389).
"With respect to the second assigned error, the respondent argued that he had been in actual and continuous possession of the land as evidenced by the temporary receipts issued by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). These NIA receipts issued in the names of petitioner Julia Relucio or respondent Ricardo Manalastas as payees thereof are evidence of actual payment or irrigation fees. They do not establish his status as a share-tenant on the land owned by the petitioner. Since cultivation of the landholding was entrusted to the respondent, it is logical that he had to be in possession thereof. However, this does not free him from the obligation to pay for the irrigation water utilized by him in the cultivation of the farmholding entrusted to him.
"After the thorough evaluation of the evidence presented by the parties, this Board is convinced that the respondent is not a tenant-farmer on the land, nor is he entitled to the security of tenure which is only granted by law to a de jure tenant (Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al., 168 SCRA 247).
After public respondent filed its comment to the petition, to which petitioner filed his reply, it submitted a manifestation that said comment be considered as withdrawn, which was granted by this Court.
The Solicitor General's Office filed its comment, with the recommendation that petitioner " . . . be declared a tenant of private respondent without prejudice to the result of the investigation of DAR as to the actual landholding of petitioner as to entitle him only within the award ceilings granted to beneficiaries of an area not exceeding three (3) hectares pursuant to Section 25 of RA 6657."
Private respondent also filed her comment praying for dismissal of the petition.
There is no serious disagreement that prior to year 1973, the petitioner Ricardo Manalastas and his two older brothers were plowing, harrowing and planting on the land owned by private respondent Julia Relucio, situated in San Fernando Sur, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, containing an area of 2.524 hectares. Her father, Martin Relucio, who was then managing the land, agreed that he shoulder the yearly expenses for the cultivation of the land, i.e., seedlings and fertilizer; that said expenses are to be deducted during harvest time; and that the remainder is to be divided between him and Ricardo equally. The brothers of petitioner left him sometime in 1973 and he continued cultivating the landholding. After the death of Martin Relucio, private respondent was represented by her brother, Venancio Relucio and his wife Angelina, and the existing agreement continued, in that private respondent contributed cash advances every crop year for threshing, fuel and fertilizer, which expense accounts are deducted from the annual yield during harvest time, and the remainder were equally shared by petitioner and private respondent on a 50/50 basis.
In 1989, due to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, the land was placed under the coverage of the CARP, and the relationship of petitioner and private respondent was converted into one of leasehold. As a result, the MARO, thru Mr. Palomo, directed petitioner to deposit the harvest into a bonded warehouse. Upon learning of such conversion, private respondent summoned the petitioner in her house, informed him of her objection to such conversion, that she was not amendable to pay the lease, and told him that she was taking back the land. Angelina, the wife of Venancio Relucio who was representing private respondent at that time obtained 60 cavans of palay from petitioner. This incident was entered in the blotter of the barrio councilor's office and which disenabled petitioner from complying with the MARO directive.
On October 3, 1989, private respondent filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Cabanatuan City, docketed as REG. Case No. 569 NE'89 against petitioner, for the return of the land, and recovery of P19,000.00 as damages. On November 14, the DAR Hearing Officer referred the case to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, in San Fernando Sur, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, for mediation and conciliation. On November 22, a document, entitled "Nagkakaisang Papapatibay" was executed and signed by and between the petitioner and private respondent before the Committee, which state the following:
"2. Na ang nakapossession o gumagawa sa ngayon Nobyembre, 1989 ay si Ricardo Manalastas na nagsimula pa noon 1984 dahil sa ang nasabing pananakahan ay walang nakasulat na kasunduan, pagkat sila ay magkamag-anak at magkinakapatid pa. Kaya't ito ay hiraman lamang at hindi nakapagbigay ng ano mang kaparti o buwis sa bukid na naipadala si Ricardo Manalastas kay Julia Relucio. Kaya sila ay hindi magkasundo.
"3. Na si Ricardo Manalastas sa nasabing bukid ay hindi registradong magsasaka hanggang sa ngayon at si Julia Relucio naman ay hindi pumapayag na ito ay maging buwis na lamang.
"4. Na ang nais ng may kahilingan na si Julia Relucio ay bawiin na ang lupang sakahin dahil iyon ay napapaloob sa isang hiraman lamang.
"5. Na ang kasagutan ng nagsusumbong na si Ricardo Manalastas ay gusto niya iyon ay mapaloob na sa Buwisan o Leasehold System.
"6. Na batay sa mga nasasaad na ito kapwa kami ay dumudulog nakikiusap na bigyan ng kapasyahan ang aming mga kahilingan.
"Sa pagpapatibay ng lahat ng nasasaad kami ay lumagda ngayon ika-2 ng Nob. 1989 dito sa Cabiao, Nueva Ecija."
On February 26, 1990 the Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board, Region III, San Fernando, Pampanga, rendered its decision:
"1. Declaring that no tenancy relationship had been established between the petitioner and the respondent over the subject landholding;
"2. Declaring and maintaining the petitioner in possession and cultivation of the subject landholding with an area of 2.5 hectares, more or less, located at San Fernando Sur, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija restraining the respondent or any other persons acting in his behalf from entering, including and distributing the farming activities of the petitioner in the subject landholding;
"3. Dismissing all claims for damages."
On November 9, 1993, in connection with the appeal by petitioner, public respondent rendered its decision, the penultimate and dispositive portion of which reads:
"After thorough evaluation or the evidence presented by the parties, this Board is convinced that the respondent is not a tenant farmer on the land, nor is he entitled to the security of tenure which is only granted by law to a de jure tenant (Caballes vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, et al., 168 SCRA 247).
"WHEREFORE, premises considered the appealed Decision dated February 26, 1990 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
"xxx xxx xxx"
Hence, this petition.
A tenant is a person who, by himself, and/or with the aid of his immediate household cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production and sharing of the produce with the landowner under the share tenancy system, or by paying to the latter a price certain or ascertainable in produce, or in money, or in both under the leasehold tenancy system (Magno-Adamis v. Bagasao, 162 SCRA 747).
The essential requisites of tenancy relationship, which must concur, (Baranda vs. Baguio, 189 SCRA 194), are:
(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 harvest."
The evidence is clear. Private respondent owns the land in question, which is agricultural, and devoted to agricultural production. The element of personal cultivation is also present.
Petitioner insists that he is a tenant having been tilling the land prior to 1973, with his two brothers, all of them plowing, harrowing and planting, and continued to do so after his brother left. Private respondent, however, claims that petitioner is not her tenant, as he merely held the land by virtue of the trust and confidence which she reposed on him, being the grandson of her late father. We are not convinced.
Proof are the cash advances which petitioner obtained from private respondent and which he obligated to liquidate from time to time. This fact is shown under the stipulation of facts entered into by and between the petitioner and private respondent.
"Q. Halimbawa po 106 inalis and 6 na kaban matitira, 100, doon ay 50-50 kayo, ganuon po ba ang usapan ninyo?
"A. Opo."
(TSN, June 19, 1991, p. 17)
"Q. Oho, ano muna ang unang gagawin, kung halimbawa nandiyan na iyong palay, magkakaroon na kayo ng partihan, ano ang unang ginagawa?
"A. Ang una pong gagawin ay inalis iyong hunos ng thresher, pagkatapos po hahatiin na po sa bukid pa lang saka po iuuwi, tapos hihilahin na po".
(TSN, DARAB Case 0145, June 19, 1991)
The stipulation well confirmed the landlord-tenancy relationship between the parties, as well as their sharing of the harvest on a 50-50 basis, after deducting the expenses for cultivation.
Exhibit 5 is another confirmatory proof. It is a letter of private respondent to petitioner, listing her yearly cash contributions to the expenses in the cultivation of the land. Thus:
"Dear Eves
Na ito ang lista nang pera na galling sa akin 1983 nang huli tayong magkwenta ay 1983.
1983 may Balance ka 214
1984 para sa araro 2,000
1984 para sa pataba
(hindi nagamit)
1985 una 5,000
1985 2,000
1986 Nov. 2,000
1987 Jan — Nene 2,500
Eves, hindi mo naman ako pinasukan kahit kaunti nong 1985 wala akong hanap buhay ngayon, ibig kong magdala ulit nang alahas o kailangan ko nang puhunan ibebenta ko nga ang aking kaparti sa iyo. Eves, kung makakaluwas ka sana, para magkwenta tayo, hindi na yata ako makauwi dahil walang kasi si Inang.
"Si Letty wala na dine nag abroad na, kaya hindi rin ako nananahi.
"Ipadala mo kaya ang listahan no sa taon taon.
"Hanggang ditto na lang. Kumusta sa inyo lahat.
Love,
Ate Juling"
(Manifestation and Motion, OSG, pp. 10-11)
The Affidavit of the Barangay Councilman of San Antonio, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, dated December 13, 1993, is likewise another confirmatory evidence, stating the following:
"2. That one of the functions of my office as Barangay Councilman was to receive reports of any untoward occurences within the jurisdiction of our barangay and to register/record or reduce into writing any legal transactions entered into by anyone of our constituents upon the request of one and/or all the parties therein;
"3. That in the course of the performance of my aforecited function, I noted down on May 2, 1989 upon the report of Mrs. Nieves Manalastas that 60 cavans of palay were taken from her and deposited in the warehouse of Mrs. Angelina Relucio, located in our barangay. A note or memorandum evincing this report is hereto attached as Annex 'A' and made an integral part of this affidavit. This note/memorandum has been misplaced and it was just recently located;
"4. Upon verification from all parties concerned, I learned that the said 60 cavans were 'buwis' of the husband of Nieves, Iding, as tenant of Julia Relucio, the landowner of the agricultural land he is tilling;
"5. The said incident was reported because Julia Relucio/her representative did not want to issue any receipt for the said 60 cavans;
"6. That I personally knew that at that time, there was a share-tenancy relationship existing between Iding and Julia;
"7. That to settle the aforesaid issue, it was agreed by the parties that the note/memorandum hereto attached as Annex 'A' shall serve as the receipt to show evidence or proof of payment of the said 'buwis' for the year 1989."
Public respondent, however, insists on page 7 of its decision, that petitioner "is just a usufructuary of the property. . . .". Public respondent should not confuse tenancy, with that of usufruct, for, usufruct, under Article 562 of the Civil Code, gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. One of its fundamental purposes is jus utendi, the right to use the property as well as to enjoy the benefits and derive all advantages from the object as a consequence of its normal us. As shown by the evidence in chief, petitioner is obliged to share the harvest/fruits of the land or to pay lease to the private respondent on a 50/50 basis, which is obligatory under their agreement and as ordained by law.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is declared a tenant of private respondent. Although, as recommended by the Office of the Solicitor General, this declaration should be without prejudice to the result of the investigation of the DAR as to the actual landholding of petitioner as to entitle him only within the award ceiling granted to land beneficiaries of an area not exceeding three (3) hectares, pursuant to Section 25 of RA 6657.
SO ORDERED.
Hofilena and Demetria, JJ., concur.