TENTH DIVISION

[CA G.R.-CV No. 34248.  November 29, 1995.]

SPOUSES DEMETRIO AGENA and JULIANA CABRAL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. SEGUNDA CATAQUIZ, defendant-appellant.

D E C I S I O N

LIPANA-REYES, C., J p:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oriental Mindoro, Branch 40, in Civil Case No. R-3734, an action for the recovery of possession of a parcel of land, accounting and damages filed by the spouses Demetrio Agena and Juliana Cabral against Segunda Cataquiz. The dispositive portion of the said decision is as follows:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, as follows:

"1.     Ordering defendant or any person acting in her behalf to surrender the actual possession of the land in question to herein plaintiffs and to vacate the same after surrender;

"2.     Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs the mount of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Considering that plaintiffs have admitted that defendant and her husband introduced the improvements in 1958 in good faith up to the time plaintiffs acquired the property, the improvements or the same shall offset whatever proceeds defendant derived therefrom as a consideration for their labor and expenses in improving the same. Thus no actual damages shall accrue to herein plaintiffs" (Rollo, p. 25).

The antecedents of the case are s follows:

The property subject of the instant action is a parcel of land situated in Barangay Pakyas, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, some 8,258 square meters in area, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-3205 in the name of the spouses Demetrio Agena and Juliana Cabral. The said title was issued pursuant to Free Patent No. (IV-191) 03050 (Annex "A"). The said parcel of land was bought by the Agena spouses from Eufracia and Maximo de las Alas on April 11, 1981; it is planted to rambutan, lanzones, citrus, coffee, banana and cacao (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 5).

At the time of the above purchase, the defendant Segunda Cataquiz ("Cataquiz" for brevity) was in possession of the subject property (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 7). Although she resided some two kilometers away, Cataquiz tended some of the fruit trees on the said land, since the imprisonment of her husband, Nicasio Cataquiz (TSN, September 12, 1990, p. 9; Rollo, pp. 19-20). It appeared that in 1958, Nicasio Cataquiz was invited by one Inocencia de las Alas to clear and cultivate some fourteen (14) hectares of land in Pakyas, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro (which included the subject land) (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 3) Nicasio eventually married the defendant, who helped him plant fruit trees on the land (TSN, January 22, 1991, pp. 3-4). The Cataquizes tended the fruit trees until Nicasio was incarcerated.

Meanwhile, Inocencia de las Alas and her son Maximo Martinez, began selling portions of the 14-hectare land until only the present are remained. The disputed land was then leased by the defendant in 1972 in favor of Alfredo Ortega, who was given the right to harvest and gather the fruits of calamansi trees thereon for a period of ten (10) years (TSN, January 22, 1991, pp. 3-4). Upon the expiration of the period in 1982, Cataquiz allowed one Mrs. Mendoza to harvest and gather the fruits (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 8).

Without the knowledge of Cataquiz, Maximo Martinez sold the land to herein plaintiffs (Rollo, p. 20). Upon discovering the sale, Cataquiz approached the municipal judge of Victoria and the agrarian office of Socorro, Oriental Mindoro; she was advised to stay on the land (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 7). In 1984, the plaintiffs-spouses were issued a free patent (Annex "A"). However because of the stubborn refusal of Cataquiz to vacate the land, the plaintiffs instituted the instant action to eject her.

The trial court rendered a decision upholding the better right of the plaintiffs to possession but at the same time, finding the defendant to be a builder in good faith (Rollo, p. 35). Hence this appeal.

In this appeal, the defendant-Appellant assigns the following errors:

"I

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT SEGUNDA CATAQUIZ WAS A TENANT IN THE LANDHOLDING IN QUESTION AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE;

"II

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT OR ANY PERSON ACTING IN HER BEHALF TO SURRENDER THE ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION TO THE PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND TO VACATE THE SAME AFTER SURRENDER;

"III

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DEFENDANT TO PAY PLAINTIFFS THE AMOUNT OF P5,000.00 AS ATTORNEY'S FEES" (Rollo, p. 19).

The pivotal issue to be resolved is whether the appellant is a tenant on the subject land.

The appellant contends that she is a tenant because: (1) she and her husband were the ones who planted the fruit trees on the disputed land, as admitted by a witness for the plaintiffs, Gloria Martinez Felonia, and (2) she herself had been in continuous possession of the land notwithstanding change of ownership thereof (Rollo, p. 22).

On the other hand, the plaintiffs-appellees contend that Cataquiz cannot be a tenant since: (1) she claims title to the land as owner thereof, which claim however is unsupported by any proof whatsoever; (2) she admitted that cultivating the land is not her means of livelihood; (3) Cataquiz herself admitted leasing the land to two different persons, which admission is entirely incompatible with tenancy; (4) the defendant-admitted that she never gave share of the fruits of the land to the owners (Rollo, pp. 31-33).

In order for a tenancy relation to arise, the following requisites must concur: (1) the parties are the landowners and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is a personal cultivation on the part of the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties (Cuano vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 122; Isidro vs. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503; Qua vs. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 236; Baranda vs. Baguio, 189 SCRA 194; Zamora vs. Su, Jr., 184 SCRA 248).

The Court finds that no tenancy relation existed in the instant case.

In the first place, the appellant claims title over the disputed land based on ownership (TSN, January 22, 1991, pp. 10-11). She alleged that the property is hers, though she cannot submit any proof to substantiate the same. Such an assertion is entirely counter to her position on appeal that she is a tenant; the parties cannot therefore be deemed to stand in the relation of landlord and the tenant, as their claims to the land are actually opposing.

Furthermore, it does not appear from the evidence that the real agreement between the Cataquizes and Inocencia de las Alas or the plaintiffs was (Cf. TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 4). Although there is no dispute that the subject matter is agricultural land and the purpose is for agricultural production, there is no showing that the parties intended to share the produce of the land. In the fact, Cataquiz herself admitted that she never shared the harvests of the fruit trees with Inocencia de las Alas or with the plaintiffs (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 12; Cf. TSN, September 12, 1990, p. 15). Non-sharing of the harvests indicates that no tenancy relationship ever existed (Cf. Odsigue vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 626).

Besides, Cataquiz herself did not personally cultivate the land; she leased the land to Alfredo Ortega from 1972-1982 and then again to one Mrs. Mendoza (TSN, January 22, 1991, p. 8). Absent the element of personal cultivation, one cannot be a tenant (Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 529; Zamora vs. Su, Jr., supra; Coconut Cooperatives Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 568; Evangelista vs. Court of Appeals, 158 SCRA 41).

It would appear that Inocencia de las Alas duly paid the defendant and her husband for the plantings on the 14-hectare land (TSN, October 5, 1990, pp. 11-13) but eventually allowed them to harvest the fruits on the remaining portion in compensation for their services. Their possession therefore, was in good faith; it was at the tolerance of the plaintiffs' predecessors.

Anent the award of attorney's fees, this Court finds the same to be unwarranted. It is settled that the reason for the award of attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the court's decision' otherwise, if it is stated only in the dispositive portion, the same must be disallowed on appeal (Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Rodriguez, 182 SCRA 899). Since the reason for the award of attorney's fees below was not stated in the body of the decision, the same should now be disallowed.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the sole modification that the award for attorney's fees is hereby DELETED.

SO ORDERED.

Benipayo and Ibay-Somera, JJ., concur.