FOURTEENTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 48460. May 19, 2000.]
FELIX ROCAS and VICTORIO ROCAS, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF HORACIO SORIANO, SR., Represented by HORACIO SORIANO, JR., respondents.
D E C I S I O N
REGINO, J p:
Before Us is a petition for review seeking to set aside and reverse the Decision, dated August 8, 1997, and Resolution, dated June 16, 1998, both issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 3575 (PARAD Case No. 186), entitled "Heirs of Horacio Soriano, represented by Horacio Soriano, Jr. vs. Felix Rocas and Victorio Rocas", which affirmed in toto the Decision, dated December 28, 1994, issued by the Provincial Adjudicator of Camarines Norte, Hon. Pedro B. Jamer, Jr. and denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, respectively.
The antecedent facts of the case are set forth below.
The case arose out of a petition for ejectment with damages filed by the respondents against the petitioners on April 29, 1994. Based on the allegations in the petition filed before the Provincial Adjudicator, the respondents, petitioners therein, are co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land more particularly described, as follows:
"A parcel of unirrigated riceland located in Bgy. Bakiad, Labo, Camarines Norte, with an area of 2.5000 hectares, bounded, as follows: N- Lot 1650A; S-Lot 1650; E-Lot 1650; W-Lot 1650 pt.; W-Lot 1619, declared in the name of Araceli Vda. de Soriano, under Tax Dec. No. 0130298, assessed at P5,630.00"
The abovedescribed property was untenanted but cultivated by hired labor, one of whom was Juan Rocas, who, upon his death, was succeeded by his son, petitioner Victoria Rocas, while his other son, petitioner Felix Rocas, caused himself to be listed as tenant thereof. The petitioners retained possession of the landholding and refused to vacate, despite demand, hence, depriving respondents of the produce of the land, approximating 80 covens of palay per hectare per harvest from 1987 until the time of the filing of the petition. On the other hand, the petitioners claimed that petitioner Felix Rocas is the successor of his late father as tenant of the property and they subsequently acquired the property through Operation Land Transfer.
The Provincial Adjudicator, Hon. Pedro B. Jamer, Jr., considered the following documentary evidence in the disposition of the case: for the respondents, "'Malayang Salaysay' dated May 10, 1993 (Exh. 'E'), executed by the Samahang Nayon President Delprado Jarapa; 'Salaysay' of Juan Sapo dated April 26, 1991 (Exh. 'F'); 'Certification' (Exh. 'H') issued by the MARO of Labo, Camarines Norte; 'Receipts of Payment' (Exh. 'N' to 'P', 'R'); 'Payrolls' (Exhs. 'I' to 'M', 'Q', 'S' to 'U'); 'Receipt of Payment' signed by Modesto and Felix Rocas (Exh. 'V') and; for the petitioners, "two (2) certifications, one issued by the MARO of Labo, Camarines Norte (Annex '2'), and the other issued by the President of the Samahang Nayon (Annex '1'), which, however, was later recalled by said President in his 'Malayang Salaysay' dated May 10, 1993 (Exh. 'E' above)." (Rollo, pp. 33-4) He subsequently made a finding that there is substantial evidence showing that petitioners were merely paid farm workers and not tenants. In dismissing the probative value of the petitioners' evidence, he ruled that "the mere certification by the MARO Office that Felix Rocas is a tenant on the landholding in question is not sufficient to overcome the evidences to the contrary submitted by petitioners which remain uncontroverted, specifically the payrolls and the receipts of payment for their labor on the land in question signed by both respondents." (Id.) The decretal portion of his Decision, dated December 28, 1994, reads, thus:
"WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs:
"1. Declaring the respondents, not tenants, in the landholding described in Par. 2 of the petition;
"2. Ordering respondents to vacate the premise and surrender the same to the petitioners;
"3. all other claims are denied for insufficiency of evidence.
"No pronouncement as to costs.
"SO ORDERED." (Id., p. 35)
When the petitioners elevated the case to the Adjudication Board on appeal, respondents filed a "Motion to Appoint the Sheriff to Supervise the Harvesting and Accounting of the Produce on the Land in Question" which was resolved in a Resolution, dated January 4, 1996, the dispositive portion of which states, as follows:
"Finding the request to be in order and as an interim measure to protect and preserve the right of the parties pendente lite, order is hereby issued:
"1. Deputizing and directing the Sheriff of the DARAB Provincial Office in Camarines Norte, and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Labo, Camarines Norte and if necessary, with the assistance of the members of the PNP within the locality where the subject property is situated to supervise the harvesting of palay and after deducting the necessary expenses for seeds, reaping, threshing and/or hauling from the gross harvest, deliver FIFTY PER CENT (50%) of the resulting net harvest to herein to respondents-appellants who are in actual possession, TWENTY FIVE PER CENT (25%) to be delivered to petitioners-appellees, and the remaining TWENTY FIVE PER CENT (25%) to be deposited in the nearest Bank in the locality, in the names of both parties under custodia legis of this Board. If the produce were already harvested and sold, the same shall be liquidated and disposed of as herein provided;
"2. That no withdrawal of the deposit in any form whatsoever shall be allowed except upon prior order of this Board; and
"3. The Provincial DARAB Sheriff and the MARO concerned shall submit a written Compliance Report which shall include a detailed statement of the liquidation of harvest duly supported by receipts of expenses for seeds, reaping, threshing and/or hauling, with a machine copy of the warehouse receipt covering the deposit or a deposit slip covering the sales proceeds of the harvest, as the case may be, within five (5) days from the implementation of this Order.
"This Order is immediately executory and shall remain in full force and effect until further orders of this Board.
"SO ORDERED." (pp. 2-3)
Meanwhile, the Adjudication Board resolved the appeal in a Decision, dated August 8, 1997, containing the following findings:
"Nothing was adduced by appellants, however, that all the elements of tenancy relationship were present to accord them security of tenure which onlytenants (sic) de jure enjoy. Neither were they able to rebut the array of evidences presented by the appellees, particularly the payrolls and the receipts which more than substantially prove that appellants are paid farmworkers on subject landholding.
"Indubitably, this Board finds the conclusion drawn by the Provincial Adjudicator from the documentary evidence submitted by the parties to be in order. For, as what the Honorable Adjudicator has observed, 'In the instant case, the evidences submitted by the plaintiff's to support their claim are not only substantial but overwhelming." (Rollo, pp. 39-40)
The dispositive portion of the decision states, thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, decision is hereby rendered DISMISSING the appeal for lack of merit The decision a quo dated December 28, 1994 is hereby considered final and executory.
"Let the records of this case be remanded to the sala of the Provincial Adjudicator a quo for the issuance of a writ of execution.
"SO ORDERED." (Id.)
The motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision, filed by petitioners, was denied in a Resolution, dated June 16, 1998.
Hence, this petition raising the following grounds:
"I
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS ARE PAID FARMWORKERS OR BONA FIDE TENANT OF THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING.
"II
WHETHER OR NOT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS (sic) CAUSE OF ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED.
"III
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROVINCIAL ADJUDICATOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDERED (sic) THE PETITIONER TO VACATE THE SUBJECT LANDHOLDING AND SURRENDERED THE SAME TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DESPITE THE CONTRARY PROVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988." (Rollo, p. 15)
Anent the findings that the petitioners are merely farmworkers and not tenants of the property, a perusal of the petitioners' arguments on the probative value of the proofs presented by respondents would appear to merit the court's re-examination thereof. Petitioner attacked the probative value of the aforementioned evidence in this wise:
"Testing the evidence relied upon by the Honorable Provincial Adjudicator which was affirmed by the Appellate Board, the same miserably failed to qualify as such. There is no logical relation between the purported payrolls and receipts and the tenancy issue. It bears to emphasized that while it is true that the name of Felix Rocas appeared as one of the workers in Exhibit Q, there is no indication therein to show that the land over which he was paid for his labor is the same land that is the subject matter of the case at bench. In fact, a careful examination of said Exhibit Q showed that Felix Rocas work was rendered in Poblacion not in Bry. Bakiad where the land holding is located Under the column 'Mga Nagawang Tulong' opposite the name of Felix Rocas, it is clearly stated therein 'Pagsugod-Poblacion' Notice that the Poblacion of Labo is about three (3) kilometers away from Brgy. Bakiad. In the same manner, Exhibit U does not show any indication that the alleged work performed by Felix Rocas was done in Brgy. Bakiad or more particularly in the subject landholding at Brgy. Bakiad. A perusal of Exhibit U showed instead that apparently the work rendered by the alleged workers therein one of which is Felix Rocas was done at Poblacion Subdivision. This is evident at the note written on the upper most portion of said Exhibit U. What is more evident is that the signature of Felix Rocas under the claim, 'Lagda ng Katulong' opposite his name does not appear at all thereof. In all probabilities, Felix Rocas could not have received the amount indicated therein for his alleged rendition of labor or better still, he could not have performed at all any form of services to the private respondent. Moreover, with respect to Exhibit R, he does not deny the same because the farm is in Santol. Bakiad is entirely different from the land in question." (rollo, pp. 18-9) (emphasis supplied)
The crux of petitioners' arguments attack the apparent failure of the respondents to establish their status as farmworkers on account of the dearth of evidence definitely pointing to the identity of the property actually worked on by the petitioners. The payroll forms failed to show that they refer exclusively to work performed on the land subject matter of the controversy. The listing of work done by other workers on the payroll showed that it included work done in Santol, Bakiad, Basig, Poblacion Subdivision, Ermita, Mororoque, (Exhibits "I" to "M"). This would reinforce the respondents' claim that they own several parcels of agricultural land but casts doubt on whether petitioners were paid for work done on the property subject matter of the case. Moreover, assuming the allegations of the respondents to be true with respect to the unlawful withholding by the petitioners of the property for ten years which, in view of the fact that the petition was filed on April 29, 1994, presumably commenced sometime in the year 1984, the silence or inaction of respondents and continued engagement of the services of the petitioners as shown by Exhibits "Q," "R," "U," and "V" appear to be contrary to human nature. Assuming arguendo that the work covered by the aforecited exhibits were performed on the property subject matter of the case, it would appear that respondents were doubly prejudiced by the situation because they not only paid petitioners for work performed but also allowed petitioners to exclusively enjoy the produce thereof. With respect to the "Malayang Salaysay" executed by Delprado Jarap (Exhibit "E") which is actually a recantation of his previous affirmation of petitioners' status as tenants of respondents, the probative value of the said document is subject to the following ruling of the Supreme Court: "The asserted motives for repudiation are commonly held suspect, and the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit of repudiation are frequently and deservedly subject to serious doubt." (Molina vs. People, 259 SCRA 138, 158 [1996]). Even without such defect, the affidavit of Delprado Jarap as well as the certifications issued by Juan Sapo and Quiterio Villafuerte (Exhibits "F" and "G") contain only general statements and conclusions of law which are insufficient as proof that petitioners are not tenants but hired labor. (Quintero vs. National Bureau of Investigation, 162 SCRA 467, 483 [1988].
"In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his or her complaint." (Cortes vs. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423 [I998]. Substantial evidence has been defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." (Rule 133, Section 5, Revised Rules of Court) Based on Our findings, the evidence presented by respondents failed to meet the aforesaid standard, hence, We are constrained to reverse the findings of fact of both the Adjudication Board and the Provincial Adjudicator. (Zacarias Ticzon vs. Commission of Elections, 103 SCRA 671, 687 [1981]) A decision which is based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand as it will offend due process. (De Paul/King Philip Customs Tailor, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 129824, March 10, 1999)
It is, has not however, escaped the Court's notice that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, Labo Camarines, Norte, through Emma Connie J. Rivera, recognized, in a Certification dated May 3, 1990, that the property subject matter of the case at bench has been tenanted by petitioner Felix Rocas, identified as the son of Juan Rocas. (records, p. 11). Considering that the certification was issued by a public official, the presumption that "official duties have been regularly performed" (Rule 131, Section 3, subparagraph m, Rules of Court) gives the alleged certification the stamp of validity. In People vs. Carlos De Guzman, 229 SCRA 795, 799 [1994], the Supreme Court lengthily discussed the probative value of the document thus:
"A disputable presumption has been defined as a species of evidence that may be accepted and acted on where there is no other evidence to uphold the contention for which it stands, or one which may be overcome by other evidence. One such disputable/rebuttable presumption is that an official act or duty has been regularly performed. Presumption of this nature is indulged by the law for the following fundamental reasons: first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath will not be violated; and third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. Thus, this presumption evidences a rule of convenient public policy universally applied and without which great distress would spring in the affairs of men.
"The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.
With respect to the second ground cited by petitioners, the computation of the period of prescription will be determined by the allegations in the complaint or, in the case at bench, the petition. (Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 191 SCRA 195, 199 [1990]) The respondents' renunciation of the existence of a tenancy relationship with petitioners prevents the application of Section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844. (Gelos vs. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 608, 615 [1992])
Finally, the resolution of the third ground has already become moot and academic in view of Our earlier findings.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition for review is hereby GRANTED. The Decision, dated December 24, 1986, Resolution, dated June 16, 1998, and Order, dated January 4, 1996, all issued by the Adjudication Board, Department of Agrarian Reform, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the petition in DARAB Case No. 3575 (PARAD Case No. 186) is dismissed for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio Morales and * Gozo-Dabole, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Acting Member per Office Order No. 59-00-M.