Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2020 > September 2020 Decisions > G.R. No. 222768 - JOSEFINA ARINES-ALBALATE AND JUANA ARINES, Petitioners, v. SALVACION REYES AND ISRAEL REYES, Respondents.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari¹ under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision² dated December 1, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 125265, which reversed and set aside the Decision³ dated November 21, 2011 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and dismissed Josefina Arines-Albalante (Josefina) and Juana Arines' (collectively, petitioners) complaint in DARAB Case No.V-RC-062-CS-03. Likewise assailed is the Resolution⁴ dated January 19, 2016 of the CA, which denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Facts of the Case

This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal ejectment filed by Josefina, represented by her sister-in-law Juana Arines, against respondents Salvacion Reyes (Salvacion) and Israel Reyes (collectively, respondents) before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD), San Jose, Pili, Camarines Sur.⁵

Josefina is the daughter of Sergio Arines, the original tenant of the subject rice holding known as Lot 5543 consisting of one hectare, more or less, located at Sta. Isabel, Buhi, Camarines Sur. The subject landholding has a lease rental of 20 cavans per harvest. During his lifetime, Sergio remitted the landowner's share to respondent Salvacion who received it personally or through her representative. No receipts were issued by the landowners. Sergio Arines died in 1997.⁶
Josefina alleged that sometime in May 2003, Salvacion verbally advised her to desist from cultivating the subject land and surrender possession thereof to them. When Josefina refused to heed the demand, respondents, with the assistance of several workers, forcibly entered the land and undertook its cultivation. Despite repeated demands, respondents refused to return possession of the land to Josefina.⁷

Josefina brought the issue before the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Chairperson for possible amicable settlement. The BARC recommended to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) for mediation but to no avail. Hence, Josefina filed this case for illegal ejectment and reinstatement to the possession of the subject landholding with payment of their unrealized production of 60 cavans per cropping.⁸

By way of special and affirmative defenses, respondents claimed that Josefina is without legal capacity to sue and be sued as she is a deaf-mute.⁹ Juana Arines, on the other hand, has not been legally authorized to represent Josefina. Respondents averred that petitioners are not the registered tenants of Salvacion, and neither did they legally succeed their alleged predecessor-in� interest, Sergio Arines, as the latter had abandoned the land. No one of the children of the late Sergio Arines - some of whom are abroad- have actually and personally cultivated the subject land considering that the farm had always been subleased to third parties. Respondents posited that petitioners breached the stipulations in the Provincial Rental Contract.¹⁰ They claimed that Sergio Arines did not deliver dry and clean palay as those delivered were wet and decayed palay, and that petitioners had occupied 1.5 hectares of their landholding. Respondents averred that as of June 6, 2003, the late Sergio Arines incurred arrearages for irrigation fees in the amount of P118,108.87. Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and declare petitioners as non-tenants of the landholding in question.¹¹

Ruling of the PARAD
After submission of the parties' position papers, the Provincial Adjudicator of San Jose, Pili, Carnarines Sur rendered a Decision¹² dated December 16, 2004, granting the complaint. The dispositive portion reads:cj

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainants, and other issue as follows:

1. Ordering the respondents to reinstate complainant Josefina Arines-Alba[l]ate as agricultural lessee of the subject landholding, and for the former to maintain and respect the latter's possession and cultivation of the same;

2. Ordering the respondents to pay the complainants sixty (60) cavans ofpalay per cropping, from the time of the institution of this action up to its final termination.

SO ORDERED.¹³

The Provincial Adjudicator ruled that respondents took the law in their own hands. If they have legal grounds and substantial evidence to support them, they should invoke the aid of a forum of competent jurisdiction, in this case, the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, to address their cause.¹⁴ Petitioners were dispossessed by respondents from their landholdings without authorization or order. The affirmative and special defenses of respondents, if found to be true, may be considered grounds for ejectment of petitioners.¹⁵

Respondents moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied in the Order dated March 10, 2005.¹⁶


Ruling of the DARAB
On appeal, the DARAB affirmed in toto the Decision¹⁷ of the Adjudicator in its Decision¹⁸ dated November 21, 2011. The DARAB enunciated the principle in agrarian law that the ejectment of tenant must be premised on a ground/s provided for by law. In the absence of any lawful ground for ejectment, the tenant/lessee must be reinstated because she is basically clothed with security of tenure.¹⁹ In this case, respondents' counter� allegations of abandonment and non-payment of rentals were not supported by substantial evidence. The filing of reinstatement case by Josefina negated any concluding statement of voluntary abandonment on their part.²⁰ Also, respondents should have demanded the delivery of the fair or regular share of dry and clean palay or harvests from their own land or at most, filed the corresponding case for ejectment before the Adjudicator. Respondents must not put the law into their hands by unjustly ejecting petitioners from the landholding and taking its possession or the cultivation thereof without due process of law.²¹

Respondents elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On December 1, 2014, the CA reversed and set aside the Decision of the DARAB and dismissed petitioners' complaint for illegal ejectment. The CA ruled that Josefina has not established any right to tenancy of the subject farm holding. Citing Section 9 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3844 that in case of the death of the agricultural lessee, it is the lessor who is given the option to choose the person to succeed in the cultivation of the landholding from the lessee's heirs, in the following order: (1) the surviving spouse; (2) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; and (3) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age. In case the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within one month from such death, the priority shall be in accordance with the aforesaid order.²² The CA stated that respondents, as landowners, did not signify their choice as to who will succeed as lessee; thus, the surviving spouse of Sergio Arines is deemed to be the successor after his death in 1997. There is no proof that the widow of Sergio Arines had actually and personally tilled the farm and neither is there proof that Josefina is the eldest child of Sergio Arines.²³ Further, the CA declared that the element of consent by the landowner is lacking; personal cultivation is absent; and there is no sharing in the produce.²⁴

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but their motion was denied in the Resolution dated January 19, 2016.²⁵

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by petitioners anchored on the following grounds:

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Josefina Arines-Albalate has not proven her right as tenant of the subject land and the Juana Arines is not a party-in�interest as she has no blood relation to Sergio Arines.

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 was not followed in choosing the person who will succeed in the cultivation of the subject land.

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that the elements of consent, personal cultivation and sharing in the produce for tenancy relationship to exist are lacking.²⁶

Arguments of Petitioners

Petitioners contend that the CA erred in holding that Josefina has not proven her right as tenant of the landholding and that Juana Arines is not a party-in-interest as she has no blood relation to Sergio Arines. They stressed that respondents recognized Sergio Arines as the rightful tenant of the land, as they even offered as exhibit the leasehold contract between Sergio Arines and respondent Salvacion Reyes. Thus, when Sergio Arines died, Josefina, his daughter, has the right to succeed him as tenant of the landholding pursuant to Section 9 of RA 1199.²⁷ Further, Josefina had proven the fact of tenancy when she presented and offered in evidence before the PARAD the Certification of the Punong Barangay that she is indeed the tenant of the subject land; the Affidavit executed by a fellow tenant adjoining the land stating that Josefina is in actual cultivation of the property owned by Reyes; and the Certification from the National Irrigation Authority stating the unpaid account for irrigation fees also in the name of tenant Josefina. Thus, by law and evidence, Josefina was able to establish that she is the rightful tenant of the subject property. However, since Josefina is a deaf-mute, she was being assisted in the cultivation of the land by Juana Arines, being an immediate member of the farm household, who also joined her as party to the instant case.²⁸ However, Juana died during the pendency of the case before the CA; hence, the issue pertaining to her legal personality has become moot and academic.²⁹

As to the order of succession in the cultivation of the land in case of death of the tenant, petitioners claim that it is the agricultural lessor who should exercise the right to choose the successor of the deceased tenant within one month from the latter's death. In this case, it took six years before respondents decided to forcibly eject the tenant of the land. They did not even file an ejectment case as required under Section 37 of RA No. 3844.³⁰

Finally, petitioners aver that they have proven the elements of consent, actual cultivation and sharing of produce. As such, they have the right to be reinstated as tenant of the landholding forcibly taken away by respondents.³¹

Comment of Respondents

Respondents insist that Josefina has not proven her right as tenant of the subject farmland. Also, they reiterate that Josefina is without legal capacity to sue and be sued as she is a deaf-mute. Juana Arines is neither a member of Josefina's immediate family nor an attorney-in-fact of Josefina.³² Respondents contend that they are not guilty of illegal ejectment. Their entry into the subject landholding was on the advice of the MARO of Buhi, Camarines Sur. Further, petitioners have no document to show that respondents were being paid rentals due from them. The burden of proving payment rests on petitioners.³³ Respondents maintain that no tenancy relationship existed between respondent Salvacion and petitioner Josefina because: (1) Josefina has not been instituted as tenant of the landholding; (2) there was no consent on the part of Salvacion to establish tenancy relationship with Josefina; (3) Josefina had abandoned the landholding; hence, she had no personal cultivation of the landholding; and (4) Josefina did not give Salvacion's share in the harvest.³⁴

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

The resolution of the present controversy hinges on these issues: (1) whether Josefina was illegally ejected by respondents from the subject landholding; and (2) whether Josefina is a tenant of the landholding and should be reinstated as such.

There is no dispute that Josefina was ejected from her possession and cultivation of the subject landholding. Respondents even admit their entry into the land but justify the same by invoking the blessing of the MARO of Buhi - alleging that it was upon the advice of MARO that they entered the subject landholding.

The Court finds that the PARAD and DARAB are correct when they ruled that respondents took the law into their hands by unjustly ejecting Josefina from the landholding and taking its possession and cultivation of the land without due process of law. If respondents have legal grounds to eject Josefina, as what they alleged in their affirmative and special defenses, they should have invoked the aid of a forum of competent jurisdiction to address their cause.

As held in Pajuyo v. CA:cj

The underlying philosophy behind ejectment suits is to prevent breach of the peace and criminal disorder and to compel the party out of possession to respect and resort to the law alone to obtain what he claims is his. The party deprived of possession must not take the law into his own hands. Ejectment proceedings are summary in nature so the authorities can settle speedily actions to recover possession because of the overriding need to quell social disturbances.³⁵

It has been ruled that notwithstanding the actual condition of the title to the property, a person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror - not even by the owners. If such illegal manner of ejectment is employed, the party who proves prior possession can recover possession even from the owners themselves.³⁶ In this case, regardless of whether Josefina is a tenant or had ceased to be one because of non-compliance with her tenancy obligations, respondents had no right to take the law into their hands and forcibly eject Josefina from the land. Josefina is entitled to remain in possession thereof until she is lawfully ejected therefrom.

Hence, notwithstanding the CA's finding that Josefina is not a tenant of the landholding, a complaint for ejectment should have been filed by respondents before the PARAD and only after an ejectment order has been issued that Josefina can be lawfully evicted from the subject land.

Besides, this Court finds that Josefina is a tenant of the landholding and, thus, should be reinstated therein. The CA erred in holding that Josefina has not established any right to tenancy of the subject landholding. Citing Section 9 of R.A. 3844, the CA held that there is no proof that the surviving spouse of Sergio Arines who is deemed to be the successor after his death in 1997, had actually and personally tilled the farm and neither is there proof that Josefina is the eldest child of Sergio Arines. The CA declared that the element of consent by the landowner is lacking; personal cultivation is absent; and there is no sharing in the produce.

The elements to constitute a tenancy relationship are the following: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.³⁷

There must be substantial evidence on the presence of all these requisites; otherwise, there is no de jure tenant. Only those who have established de jure tenant status are entitled to security of tenure and coverage under tenancy laws.³⁸

Josefina was able to discharge her burden that she has tenancy relation with Salvacion. There is no dispute that Josefina's father, Sergio Arines, was the original tenant of the landholding as shown in the leasehold contract (i.e., Provincial Rental Contract) between Sergio Arines and Salvacion. It is settled that tenancy relationship is not extinguished by the death of the landowner or the agricultural lessee. If either party dies, the tenancy continues to bind the landowner (or their heirs) in favor of the tenant (or their surviving spouse/descendant).³⁹ Hence, upon the death of Sergio Arines in 1997, his daughter Josefina had the right to succeed him to cultivate the land under the same terms of tenancy. Section 9 of R.A. 3844, cited by the CA, only provides the order of priority, upon whom the agricultural lessor should choose if he/she will exercise his/her choice or if he/she fails to do so within the period given. Nothing can be implied therein that a direct descendant of the registered tenant/agricultural lessee is prohibited from continuing the personal cultivation of the landholding. Josefina is a successor-in-interest to a tenanted land over which an agricultural leasehold has been established. Thus, the consent given by Salvacion to constitute Sergio Arines as the tenant/agricultural lessee of the subject landholding binds Josefina who, as successor-in-interest of Sergio Arines, steps into the latter's shoes, acquiring not only his right but also his obligations.⁴⁰

Respondents contend in their Answer that the family of Arines had incurred arrearages for irrigation in the amount P118,108.87 as of June 6, 2003. They further allege that Josefina never delivered dry and clean palay as provided in their rental contract but those delivered were wet and decayed palay.⁴¹ From these averments of respondents, it is safe and logical to conclude that Josefina has continued personal cultivation of the landholding and that there is sharing of harvest between Josefina and Salvacion. Josefina had been sharing the harvest to Salvacion only that those delivered by her were wet and decayed palay and not dry and clean palay. Receipts of rentals need not be presented in view of this admission by respondents of the sharing of harvest by Josefina.

In this case, the Court is only tasked to determine whether Josefina was illegally ejected from the landholding and whether Josefina, after it is established that she is a de jure tenant, should be reinstated therein. The issues as to whether: (1) there was abandonment by Sergio Arines of the landholding; (2) petitioners are guilty of subleasing the tenanted premises to third persons; (3) petitioners are guilty of non-payment of irrigation fees; and (4) petitioners failed to pay rentals, are matters which should be resolved in an ejectment case. These are lawful causes for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee which the agricultural lessor has the burden to prove.⁴²

R.A. 3844, which abolished share tenancy throughout the Philippines and established the agricultural leasehold system by operation of law, gave agricultural lessees security of tenure. Section 7 thereof provides:cj

The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.

Given the foregoing, Josefina has the right to continue in the enjoyment and possession of the subject landholding until the time when her dispossession has been authorized by the court in a judgment that is final and executory.⁴³

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 1, 2014 and the Resolution dated January 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 125265 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated November 21, 2011 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board which affirmed in toto the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Decision dated December 16,2004 is hereby REINSTATED.cj

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, J., (Chairperson), Gesmundo, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

¹Rollo, pp. 3-12.

² Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Danton Q. Bueser; id at. 29-37.

³ Penned by Member Jim G. Coleta, with the concurrence of Chairperson Virgilio R. Delos Reyes and members Anthony N. Parungao, Gerundio C. Madue�o, Mary Frances Pesayco-Aquino, and Ma. Patricia Rualo-Bello; id. at 19-25.

⁴ Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Normandie B Pizarro and Danton Q. Bueser; id. at 38-39.

⁵ Id. at 20.

⁶ Id.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id.

⁹ Id. at 15.

¹⁰ Id.

¹¹ Id. at 21.

¹² Id. at 14-17.

¹³ Id. at 16.

¹⁴ Id. at 16.

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ Id. at 18.

¹⁷ Id. at 14-17.

¹⁸ Id. at 19-25.

¹⁹ Id. at 22.

²⁰ Id. at 22-23.

²¹ Id. at 23-24.

²² Id. at 34-35.

²³ Id. at 35.

²⁴ Id. at 36.

²⁵ Id. at 38-39.

²⁶ Id. at 6.

²⁷ Id.

²⁸ Id. at 7.

²⁹ Id. at 8.

³⁰ Id.

³¹ Id. at 8-9.

³² Id. at 90.

³³ Id. at 94-95.

³⁴ Id. at 96.

³⁵Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, 474 Phil. 557, 580-581 (2004).

³⁶Heirs of Laurora v. Sterling Technopark III, 449 Phil. 181, 187 (2003).

³⁷Automat Realty and Development Corporation v. Spouses Dela Cruz, Sr., 744 Phil. 731, 743 (2014).

³⁸ Id.

³⁹Estrella v. Francisco, 788 Phil. 321, 330 (2016).

⁴⁰ See Endaya v. Court of Appeals, 289 Phil. 549 (1992).

⁴¹Rollo, p. 23.

⁴² R.A. 3844, Section 37. Burden of Proof- The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.

⁴³ See RA. 3844, Sec. 36.cj