Soliman V Pasudeco

Doctrine: Essential elements of tenancy: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an 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 landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee. The presence of all these elements must be proved
by substantial evidence. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled
to security of tenure and is not covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing
tenancy laws. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed.
Facts: Dalmacio offered to sell the property to PASUDECO. Initially, it was offered at 8php per square
meter but was reduced to 5php. The Board of Directors of PASUDECO authorized the purchase of the
property for 4php per sqm. Dalmacio and his tenants then filed a petition with the CAR seeking approval
of the voluntary surrender of the property with payment of disturbance compensation which was
approved. The tenants then surrendered the property and terminated their tenancy relationship.
On May 22, 1970, a Deed11 of Sale with Mortgage was executed between Dalmacio and PASUDECO.
Thereafter, the documents needed for the conversion of the land to residential purposes were prepared.
A TCT was issued in favor of PASUDECO. However, due to financial setbacks suffered after the imposition
of Martial Law in 1972, PASUDECO deferred the construction of the housing project. PASUDECO averred
that no person was authorized to occupy and/or cultivate the subject property.
Petitioners’ version
They claimed that, sometime in November 1970, they started working on the subject property with a
corresponding area of tillage, as certified to by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee. The Barangay
Chairperson of Macabacle, Bacolor, Pampanga, certified that the eight (8) petitioners had been the actual
tenanttillers of the subject property from 1970 up to the present, and that petitioner Baldomero Almario
(Baldomero) was issued Certificate of Land Transfer with an area of 3.2185 hectares on July 22, 1981.
The Ocular inspection and report of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer showed that since 1970,
petitioners cultivated the property, allegedly managed by late respondent Gerry, manager of PASUDECO.
Petitioners alleged that in 1970, Gerry made one Ciriaco Almario (Ciriaco) his overseer/caretaker, tasked
to collect lease rentals from petitioners. In turn, Ciriaco remitted the rentals to Gerry. On May 14, 1990,
Ciriaco certified that petitioners were the actual tenanttillers of the subject property.
The real controversy arose when PASUDECO decided to pursue the development of the property into a
housing project for its employees in the latter part of April 1990. Petitioners alleged that Gerry, together
with armed men, entered the property and destroyed some of their crops. Traversing the complaint, Gerry
raised as one of his defenses the fact that PASUDECO was the owner of the subject property. PASUDECO
then argued that petitioners were mere interlopers. The PARAD dismissed petitioners’ complaint.
While the case was pending before the DARAB, the property was devastated by lahar due to the eruption
of Mt. Pinatubo. The farming activities then ceased. The DARAB then ruled in favor of petitioners because
without the approval of the conversion application filed by PASUDECO, it could not be substantiated that
the property was residential and intended for housing purposes. Because of this, and the fact that
petitioners tilled the subject property for almost twenty (20) years, the same remained agricultural in
character. Moreover, the DARAB held that, contrary to the findings of the PARAD, the elements of consent
and sharing were present. The fact that Gerry accepted the lease rentals for years signified implied
consent. The CA then reversed the ruling of the DARAB.
Issue: whether there was a tenancy relationship between petitioner and PASUDECO
Ruling: No. Tenants are defined as persons who—in themselves and with the aid available from within
their immediate farm households—cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the
latter’s consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the share
tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both
under the leasehold tenancy system.
Based on the foregoing definition of a tenant, entrenched in jurisprudence are the following essential
elements of tenancy: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject
matter of the relationship is an 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
landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee. The presence of all these elements must be proved by
substantial evidence. Unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to
security of tenure and is not covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing
tenancy laws. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically
give rise to security of tenure.
Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landholder who is either
the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the property, and not through the acts of the
supposed landholder who has no right to the property subject of the tenancy. To rule otherwise would
allow collusion among the unscrupulous to the prejudice of the true and lawful landholder.48 As duly
found by the PARAD and the CA, Gerry was not authorized to enter into a tenancy relationship with the
petitioners. In fact, there is no proof that he, indeed, entered into one. Other than their bare assertions,
petitioners rely on the certification of Ciriaco who, likewise, failed to substantiate his claim that Gerry
authorized him to select individuals and install them as tenants of the subject property. Absent substantial
evidence showing Ciriaco’s authority from PASUDECO, or even from Gerry, to give consent to the creation
of a tenancy relationship, his actions could not give rise to an implied tenancy.
The certifications attesting to petitioners’ alleged status as de jure tenants are insufficient. In a given
locality, the certification issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform or an authorized representative, like
the MARO or the BARC, concerning the presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the
contending parties, is considered merely preliminary or provisional, hence, such certification does not
bind the judiciary.
Petitioners’ assertion that they were allowed to cultivate the subject property without opposition, does
not mean that PASUDECO impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation. Occupancy and
continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant, because the principal
factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.

Soliman V Pasudeco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soliman V Pasudeco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Soliman V Pasudeco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine: Essential elements of tenancy: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural

You might also like