THIRD DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 40661. October 16, 1997.]
VIRGILIO DELA CRUZ and LIGAYA O. LACSON (represented by ALFREDO B. LOYOLA, petitioners, vs. HON. LORENZO R. SILVA, JR., as Judge, Regional Trial Court of Bataan, Branch 3 and ERNESTO MANALO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TAYAO-JAGUROS, J p:
Before this Court is a petition for review filed by defendants-spouses Virgilio dela Cruz and Ligaya Lacson represented by their attorney-in-fact, Atty. Alfredo B. Loyola from the decision of the respondent court, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 3, in Civil Case No. 6466 reversing the earlier judgment of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orion-Pilar, Bataan in Civil Case No. 756 entitled "Virgilio dela Cruz and Ligaya Lacson, represented by Alfredo B. Loyola v. Ernesto Manalo" for Ejectment. The decretal portion of the Regional Trial Court's decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, the decision of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Orion-Pilar, Bataan dated December 12, 1995, is hereby reversed, and another one entered dismissing the complaint for unlawful detainer with costs against the plaintiffs. The prayer of the defendant for damages and attorney's fees is denied for lack of substantiation. Due to the reversal of the decision of the lower court, the motion for demolition consequent of the writ of execution previously issued pending appeal would have to be denied for lack of basis even without the filing of a supersedeas bond.
SO ORDERED.
(p. 5, Dec.; p. 95, Rollo)
These are the facts.
Plaintiffs-spouses Virgilio dela Cruz and Ligaya Lacson together with Ligaya's parents, Bruno Lacson and Anatalia Oliveros are the registered co-owners of two parcels of land measuring twenty-one (21) hectares, situated at Liyang, Bataan, under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 11667 of the Registry of Deeds of Bataan. Since 1963, Bruno Lacson has installed defendant Ernesto Manalo as an agricultural tenant of a five-hectare portion of the parcels of land. Defendant had been paying the rentals of the land, and specifically between 1976 and 1982, payment of rentals was given to Primitivo Gemina, with the rentals starting at P150.00 yearly per hectare up to P450.00 depending on the harvest. In 1979, Bruno Lacson died, and the tenancy relationship was continued between defendant and Bruno Lacson's children, Dr. Mariano Lacson and plaintiffs. Since 1991, defendant had difficulty in paying his annual rentals either due to poor harvest or the ambivalent attitude of the children of the late Bruno Lacson in accepting defendant's rentals.
On February 10, 1995, plaintiffs-spouses Virgilio dela Cruz and Ligaya Lacson through Atty. Alfredo B. Loyola sent defendant a demand letter for him to vacate the land within thirty (30) days from receipt of said letter as defendant's stay in the land since 1963 had been allegedly on mere tolerance by the plaintiffs. For failure of defendant to vacate, plaintiffs through Atty. Loyola filed an ejectment suit before the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orion-Pilar, Bataan in Civil Case No. 756.
In his answer, defendant maintains that he is an agricultural tenant of the land installed by Bruno Lacson since 1963; that since 1963, defendant has been known in the locality as an agricultural tenant; that the Municipal Circuit Trial Court has no jurisdiction in an agricultural tenancy case; and that defendant prays for the dismissal of the complaint plus damages.
After hearing under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orion-Pilar, Bataan rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, with the following decretal portion:
"Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, ordering the latter to:
1. Vacate from a portion of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11667 and surrender possession of the same to the plaintiffs;
2. Pay the plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 as damages and as attorney's fees."
(p. 68, Rollo)
Aggrieved, defendant appealed to the respondent court, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 3 which rendered the above decision reversing the judgment of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orion-Pilar, Bataan, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court to hear a tenancy case.
Hence, this petition for review filed by the plaintiffs.
We find no merit in this petition.
In the recent case of Sintos v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 223, the Supreme Court reiterated the essential requisites of tenancy relationship:
1. the parties are the landowner and the tenant.
2. the subject is an agricultural land.
3. there is consent.
4. the purpose is agricultural production.
5. there is personal cultivation.
6. there is sharing of harvests.
We find all the above requisites of tenancy relationship present in this case.
The five-hectare land in question is definitely an agricultural land devoted to agricultural production. In his sworn affidavit before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, defendant, herein private respondent stated of rice production in the tenanted land (p. 65, Rollo). Plaintiffs, herein petitioners in their sworn affidavit before the same court charged the defendant of raising crops like palay, watermelons, vegetables, and fruit bearing trees without sharing the same with them (p. 92, Rollo). This is belied, however, by defendant as he was paying rentals starting from P150.00 up to P450.00 annually depending on his harvests. Specifically, between 1976 and 1982, he had been paying his rentals through Primitivo Gemina which fact was confirmed by said Primitivo Gemina in his sworn affidavit before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court. Primitivo Gemina also stated in his affidavit that he had a list of rentals of the tenants which included a certain Margarito Mendoza but due to the length of time he lost the same. Plaintiffs do not deny that said Primitivo Gemina was their overseer of "katiwala" of the land between 1976 and 1982, and they do not impute any ill motive as to why Primitivo Gemina would falsely state under oath the tenancy relationship between defendant and Bruno Lacson plus his children including the plaintiffs. There is sharing of the harvests between the landowner and the tenant since 1963 in this case. Except starting 1991, either due to poor production or the sheer refusal of the children of the late Bruno Lacson to receive the annual rentals, defendant had been paying the due rentals. There is no question that defendant personally cultivates the land. Thus, above requisites nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6 have been complied with in this part of the discussion.
This brings Us to requisites nos. 1 and 3, that the parties are the landowner and the tenant, and that there is consent. We find them to be also present in this case.
Since 1963, until the filing of the instant ejectment case in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bataan in 1995, or a period of thirty-two (32) long years, plaintiffs contend that defendants' stay in the land was only by tolerance. As to why plaintiffs allowed the defendant to occupy, cultivate a portion of their land, earn profits from the products of said land without sharing the same with them for 32 years on mere tolerance, defies logic and human experience. Why would defendant who is not even a relative of the plaintiffs, and just a mere stranger be allowed to enrich himself in plaintiff's land? Why did not plaintiff make defendant as their overseer of the entire land to keep watch over the other tenants of said land in exchange for defendant's free stay and enjoyment of the fruits of the land? Why would plaintiffs allow defendant to have a good life in their land for 32 years considering plaintiffs' charge in their Opposition dated October 15, 1996, that defendant is even a cockpit afficionado (p. 109, Rollo)? Plaintiffs have left these questions unanswered.
The defendant's stay in the land in question as an agricultural tenant was definitely with the consent of the landowners, Bruno Lacson and plaintiffs. Defendant could not have stayed in the said land for more than three decades without said consent of the landowners, and without the tenancy relationship. In addition, two former barangay captains of the place, Ireneo Santiago and Corazon Pedroche as well as the incumbent Barangay Captain Marino Caguimbal issued certifications that defendant has been an agricultural tenant of the land in question for the past thirty-two (32) years. In issuing said certifications, regularity in the performance of his official duty goes especially with the said incumbent barangay captain (Sec. 3-m, Rule 131 of the 1988 Rules on Evidence; Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., 243 SCRA 436).
We agree with the following observation of the respondent court:
". . . While the credibility of witnesses are weighed and not numbered the Court is convinced that viz-a-viz the testimony of Atty. Loyola and the defendant, that of the latter appears credible, even more so that it is corroborated by a third person (People vs. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166). . . . While it is true that the defendant has to prove the essential elements of an agricultural lease, the Court believes that the defendant has done so. The land is agricultural; there was cultivation for over three decades; there was the payment of rentals although the defendant is in arrears; and there has been consent to the relationship as attested to by Primitivo Gemina. As such plaintiffs have the burden of proof of establishing the cause of action and the Court holds that they have miserably failed to do so. . . ."
(pp. 4-5, RTC Dec.; pp. 94-95, Rollo)
All in all, this Court believes that a tenancy relationship exists between plaintiffs, herein petitioners, and defendant, herein private respondent, and therefore rendering as dismissable the ejectment suit filed before the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orion-Pilar, Bataan for lack of jurisdiction over the instant tenancy case, as correctly found by the respondent court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE AND DISMISSED by this Court for lack of merit. The appealed decision of the respondent court, Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 3 in Civil Case No. 6466 is Affirmed.
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Paras and Valdez, Jr., JJ., concur.