Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

TWELFTH DIVISION

RUPERTO G. CUSTODIO, CA-G.R. SP No. 165524

Petitioner,
Members:

PAREDES, V.I.A., Chairperson,

- versus - MAMAUAG, JR., F.M., and
HERNANDEZ-AZURA, M.C.V., JJ.:

Promulgated:
TEOFILO RODRIGUEZ, JR., SEP 14 2023
Respondent. _________________
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION
MAMAUAG, JR., J.:

This petition for review,1 filed by petitioner, Ruperto G.

Custodio, on July 9, 2020, assailing the Decision2 dated November
28, 2018 as well as the Resolution 3 dated February 21, 2020 of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in
DARAB CASE NO. 18836.

The Antecedent Facts

The facts, as summarized by the DARAB in the assailed

Decision are, as follows:

“This is an action for Ejectment on the ground of non-

payment of lease rentals instituted on 11 December 2014 by
complainant-appellee Ruperto G. Custodio (Custodio) against
respondent-appellant Teofilo Rodriguez, Jr. (Rodriguez, Jr.),
involving a parcel of agricultural land, located in San Francisco de
Malabon Estate, General Trias, Cavite, with an area of twenty
thousand one hundred twenty-two (20,122) square meters, more or
less, registered in the name of Tomas Saliva.

Custodio alleges that on 07 July 2010, he acquired the

subject landholding from Mr. Tomas Saliva by virtue of a Deed of
Absolute Sale (DOS) and at the time of the execution of the said
DOS, Rodriguez, Jr. was already occupying a portion thereof
1 Rollo, pp. 3-30.
2 Id. at pp. 35-41.
3 Id. at pp. 73-75.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 2 of 11
Decision

wherein he cultivates and shares the proceeds or harvest thereof

with the previous owner equivalent to fourteen (14) cavans of the
latest brand of rice consisting more or less of forty-eight (48) kilos
per cavan paid annually to Mr. Tomas Saliva.

Custodio also alleges that after the execution of the said

DOS, Rodriguez, Jr. was already informed by the previous owner,
Mr. Tomas Saliva[,] that the shares of proceeds must be delivered to
the new owner. However, Rodriguez, Jr. willfully failed to deliver the
said shares to the new owner. It was further alleged that Custodio
intimated to Rodriguez, Jr. his intention to convert the sold land into
a residential subdivision subject to the payment of disturbance
compensation, but it was again left unheeded by Rodriguez, Jr.

Consequently, Custodio seeks the assistance of the

Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) Chairman to raise the
issue of non-payment of lease rentals and the intended conversion,
but to no avail.

In his Answer dated 18 March 2015, Rodriguez, Jr.

substantially denied the material averments in the complaint but
admitted that he entered into a Kasunduan Buwisan sa Sakahan
with the registered owner, Tomas Saliva. He denied that he refused
to give the landowner’s share. He also denied having personal
knowledge of the DOS between Tomas Saliva and Custodio. In
2011, the son of Custodio, in fact, offered to give disturbance
compensation in lieu of surrender of possession. Allegedly, in all
those times, Custodio’s son, negotiating as an agent for future sale
of the subject landholding, did not mention that his father already
bought the subject lot and did not divulge any information about the
buyer.

Rodriguez, Jr. further alleged that in a meeting held at the

BARC office, Custodio did not admit that he is the new owner and
did not show any authority to collect lease rentals. Rodriguez, Jr.
already manifested during the BARC meeting that he will tender
payment of lease rentals as long as Custodio will show proof of
authority. The DOS was kept a secret and remained unregistered.

Furthermore. Rodriguez, Jr. alleged that he has no intention

to deprive the landowner of his share from the proceeds of the
harvest as he has tendered payment to Tomas Saliva, but it was
declined by the latter. Rodriguez, Jr. further alleged that even
Tomas Saliva did not inform the former that Custodio already
bought the subject landholding, in fact, Tomas Saliva is pointing to
Amaya Scape Corporation as new owner.” 4

Ruling of the Provincial Adjudicator

On July 21, 2015, Provincial Adjudicator Ana Nannette P. Cruz

4 Id. at pp. 35-36.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 3 of 11
Decision

issued a Decision5 in favor of petitioner. The dispositive portion of

her Decision states:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. DECLARING the severance of the leasehold relationship

between the contending parties;

2. ORDERING respondent and all persons claiming rights

under him to peacefully surrender the possession of the
landholding in favor of complainant;

3. GRANTING the Ex-Parte Motion to Consign Lease Rentals

by the respondent and payments due thereafter in favor of
the complainant until Judgment thereon attains finality.

4. No pronouncement as to damages for insufficiency of

evidence.

SO ORDERED.”6

The Provincial Adjudicator noted that respondent Teofilo

Rodriguez, Jr. is the de jure tenant over the property not only by
petitioner’s admission but also on the strength of the Kasunduan
Buwisan sa Sakahan executed by respondent and the former owner,
Tomas Saliva (Saliva). She underscored that the controversy arose
when respondent defaulted in his payment of lease rentals for
approximately five (5) years reckoned from the time petitioner
became the owner of the property as buttressed by the DOS
executed by petitioner and Saliva on July 7, 2010. From that time
on, respondent never gave a single lease rental to the petitioner on
the pretext that he cannot present any evidence that he is the new
owner of the property.7

The Provincial Adjudicator was not convinced with

respondent’s claim that he did not pay lease rentals because
petitioner failed to prove that he is the new owner of the property.
She ruled that as early as 2011, the BARC Certification show that
petitioner was already the owner of the property. She held that from
the very beginning, respondent did not like to pay lease rentals to
petitioner and was trying to hold out until the last minute by belatedly
filing an Ex-Parte Motion to Consign Lease Rentals only on May 26,
2015 when the case is already at its end stage and after the two
BARC conferences in 2011 and 2014 had already been concluded.
She concluded that respondent willfully and deliberately failed to pay
5 Id. at pp. 145-149.
6 Id. at p. 149.
7 Id. at p. 148.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 4 of 11
Decision

his lease rentals in accordance with Section 36, paragraph 6 of

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, as amended. 8

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration 9 which the

Provincial Adjudicator denied in a Resolution 10 dated November 26,
2015.

Aggrieved, respondent appealed the case before the DARAB.

Ruling of the DARAB

On November 28, 2018, the DARAB issued the assailed

Decision, reversing the Decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The

Decision dated 21 July 2015 is SET ASIDE and a new Judgment is
hereby issued:

a.) ORDERING complainant-appellee Ruperto G. Custodio

and all persons acting in his behalf to maintain respondent-
appellant Teofilo Rodriguez, Jr. in peaceful possession and
cultivation of the subject landholding as legitimate Tenant; and

b.) GRANTING the Extra-Parte (sic) Motion to Consign

Lease Rentals filed by respondent-appellant Teofilo Rodriguez, Jr.
and payments due thereafter in favor of complainant-appellee
Ruperto G. Custodio until the herein Judgment attains finality.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.”11

The DARAB declared that since the tenancy relationship

between the parties is admitted, the sole issue to be resolved is
whether the respondent is guilty of non-payment of rentals which is
a ground for ejectment. However, the DARAB held that respondent
was not remiss in his obligation to pay since the lease rentals for the
period covering the years 1995 to 2011 were received by the
previous landowner, as confirmed by the owner of the rice mill, Isidro
Alcaraz (Alcaraz), and these payments were never refuted by
petitioner.12

The DARAB did not give weight to Saliva’s sworn statement

8 Id. at pp. 148-149.
9 Id. at pp. 151-155.
10 Id. at pp. 167-169.
11 See Note 2 at pp. 40-41.
12 Id. at pp. 37-39.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 5 of 11
Decision

where he stated that after the sale, he informed the respondent to

pay rentals to petitioner for being self-serving and inconsistent with
the fact that after the sale in 2010, Saliva still continued to receive
the rentals up to crop year 2011 from Alcaraz. Furthermore, the
DARAB observed that Custodio and Saliva did not refute this
statement of Alcaraz in his document titled “Pagpapatotoo” dated
May 18, 2015.13

Finally, the DARAB stressed that in case of sale of agricultural

land, the lessor must notify the lessee of the sale in writing. In this
case, however, the DARAB noted that there is no evidence to show
that respondent was notified of the sale in writing. It further
emphasized that respondent’s motion to consign rentals for crop
years 2012, 2013, and 2014 which was granted by the Provincial
Adjudicator, is another indication of respondent’s willingness to pay
the lease rentals.14

Hence, this petition for review.

Parties’ Arguments

Petitioner argues that there was a willful and deliberate failure

on part of respondent to pay rentals as shown by the fact that there
were at least three (3) proceedings where he could have remitted
the lease: a) during the 2011 BARC hearing; b) during the 2014
BARC hearing; and c) at the proceedings before the Provincial
Adjudicator. He claims that respondent’s bare denials and negative
testimonies cannot overcome his positive declarations and that of
his witnesses particularly, with regard to the supposed knowledge of
respondent of the DOS. Further, petitioner asserts that respondent’s
fabricated stories cannot overthrow the declaration of Saliva who
stated under oath that he informed the respondent as early as 2010
that petitioner is the new owner of the property. The same likewise
holds true with the confirmation of his son, Joseph Custodio
(Joseph), who attested that he went to respondent in connection
with the rental payments. Besides, he points out that Saliva and
respondent are relatives and it is simply impossible that respondent
had no knowledge of the sale.15

With regard to the unverified statement of Alcaraz that

respondent paid the rentals, petitioner avers that the same merely
refers to the period beginning 1995 until 2011. He also asserts that

13 Id. at pp. 39-40.

14 Id. at p. 40.
15 Rollo, pp. 13-17.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 6 of 11
Decision

Saliva had refuted Alcaraz’ statement in his affidavit where he stated

that respondent never paid any agricultural share since July 2010. 16

Petitioner maintains that respondent’s willful and deliberate

refusal to pay is shown in the 2011 BARC certification where it is
stated that he is the owner of the property and respondent refused
to attend the hearing. This is also shown when respondent still
refused to remit the rental payments to him or Saliva, despite his
demands, after the sale and the first BARC hearing. 17

Petitioner further claims that respondent has not shown any

proof of compliance of consigning the rentals for the years 2011 until
June 2020 in violation of the rulings of the Provincial Adjudicator and
the DARAB. He also asserts that respondent was out of the country
for about twenty (20) years which made it impossible for him to
personally till the property. He emphasizes that R.A. No. 3844
prohibits a lessee to employ sub-lessees on the landholding but
respondent violated the law. His son, Joseph, inspected the property
and noticed that there were other individuals cultivating it. 18

Moreover, petitioner alleges that the DARAB erred in not

considering that respondent’s right of pre-emption is separate and
distinct from his own right to dispossess him. He insists that there is
sufficient ground to dispossess the respondent from the property
due to the latter’s willful and intentional refusal to pay his
agricultural share.19

Finally, petitioner contends that the DARAB committed serious

flaw when it did not serve him a copy of the order on the transmittal
of records which violated his right to due process. 20

In his comment, respondent insists that petitioner does not

have a cause of action against him and that the only reason why he
filed the complaint is to avoid the payment of disturbance
compensation. As a matter of fact, the issue of non-payment of the
lease surfaced only after his refusal to accept the amount offered as
disturbance compensation. He also claims that during the meetings
at the BARC, petitioner did not present the DOS between him and
Saliva; hence, he cannot be faulted for not submitting the
landowner’s share to petitioner because he believed in good faith

16 Id. at p. 17.
17 Id. at pp. 17-19.
18 Id. at pp. 23-25.
19 Id. at p. 25.
20 Id. at pp. 27-28.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 7 of 11
Decision

that Saliva is still the owner.21

Respondent further avers that the DOS is not annotated in

Saliva’s title. Instead, what is annotated is the special power of
attorney authorizing petitioner to sell the property to any interested
buyer and since the tax declaration of the property is still under
Saliva’s name, there is credible proof that Saliva is still the owner of
the property.22

Moreover, respondent argues that there is no proof that

petitioner demanded the payment of the rentals from him. He
reiterates that the agenda during the BARC meetings was the
payment of disturbance compensation and even assuming that
there was a demand to pay, he did not deliberately or willfully
refused to pay. This is shown by the number of times that he
tendered the payment of the rents to Saliva which the latter declined
and pointed to Amaya Scape Corporation as the new owner of the
property.23

Finally, respondent insists that his filing of the motions for

consignation before the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB show
that he has not deliberately or willfully refused to pay lease rentals.
According to him, he should not be blamed with the confusion
created by petitioner and Saliva as to who is the real owner of the
property and his consignation of the lease rental with the Office of
the Provincial Adjudicator was his compliance to his obligation to
pay and petitioner or Saliva may claim the lease rental. 24

Our Ruling

We grant the petition.

Section 36, paragraph 6 of R.A. No. 3844 provides:

“SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions.—

Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender
of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment
and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession
has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and
executory if after due hearing it is shown that:

xxx

21 Id. at p. 204.
22 Id. at pp. 204-205.
23 Id. at pp. 205-206.
24 Id. at pp. 206-207.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 8 of 11
Decision

(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental
when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental
shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum
as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a
ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental
due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; xxx”

In order to warrant his dispossession of the landholding, the

agricultural lessee's failure to pay the lease rentals, must be willful
and deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2) years. The
term “deliberate” is characterized by or results from slow, careful,
thorough calculation and consideration of effects and
consequences, while the term “willful” is defined, as one governed
by will without yielding to reason or without regard to reason. Mere
failure of an agricultural lessee to pay the agricultural lessor's share
does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former
absent a deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural lessee to
pay. xxx To be deliberate or willful, the non-payment of lease rentals
must be absolute, i.e., marked by complete absence of any
payment.25

In this case, the Court is of the view that the respondent has
deliberately and willfully withheld the payment of the lease on the
property.

In his affidavit26 dated June 8, 2015, Saliva declared that he

sold the property to petitioner in July 2010. He stated too that he
informed the respondent about the sale and that he advised him to
pay the rent to petitioner. Saliva, moreover, mentioned that after the
sale, the respondent no longer paid him the lease rentals on the
property.

Saliva’s declarations are corroborated by the affidavit of

petitioner’s son, Joseph, who claimed that he has repeatedly asked
the respondent to pay the rents to petitioner but the latter ignored
his requests.27

Moreover, the Court is convinced that the respondent was duly

notified about the change in ownership of the property during the
2011 and 2014 BARC hearings and during the proceedings between
the parties before the Provincial Adjudicator.

Clearly, despite having acquired knowledge that the ownership

of the property had been transferred by Saliva to the petitioner, the
25 Natividad vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 179643, June 3, 2013.
26 Rollo, p. 96.
27 Id. at p. 198.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 9 of 11
Decision

respondent still failed, without justifiable cause, to pay the lease to

the petitioner. Such failure, in the mind of the Court, is deliberate
and willful and could only be attributed to the abject refusal of the
respondent to pay the petitioner the lease for the use of the latter’s
property.

In addition, it was plainly erroneous for the DARAB to

completely disregard the affidavits of Saliva and Joseph and to rule
that the respondent has paid the lease rentals on the basis of the
document written by Alcaraz, denominated as “Pagpapatotoo”28 in
spite of the fact that the “Pagpapatotoo” is an unnotarized document
while the affidavits of Saliva and Joseph are notarized documents.

In Purificacion vs. Gobing,29 the Supreme Court said:

“xxx the Notarized Malayang Salaysay is duly

acknowledged before a notary public. Settled is the rule that a
notarized document has in its favor the presumption of
regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon
it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence
without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full
faith and credit upon its face.

Being a notarized document, the Notarized Malayang

Salaysay has in its favor the presumption of regularity, as
opposed to the Unnotarized Malayang Salaysay. Thus, to
overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be evidence
that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant;
otherwise, the document should be upheld. In the instant case,
Lucila's bare denials will not suffice to overcome the
presumption of regularity of the assailed Notarized Malayang
Salaysay.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, the affidavit of Saliva declaring that the respondent has

not been paying the rents since 2010 should be given more
credence over Alcaraz’ unnotarized Pagpapatotoo stating that
respondent has paid lease rentals to Saliva from 1995 to 2011.

Nonetheless, respondent avers that he did not deliberately or

willfully failed or refused to pay the lease. According to him, this is
proven by the fact that he filed an ex-parte motion to consign the
lease rental before the Provincial Adjudicator.

We are not persuaded.

For a consignation or deposit with the court of an amount due

28 Id. at p. 135.
29 G.R. No. 191359, November 11, 2020.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 10 of 11
Decision

on a judgment to be considered as payment, there must be prior

tender to the judgment creditor who refuses to accept it. xxx Tender
of payment involves a positive and unconditional act by the obligor
of offering legal tender currency as payment to the obligee for the
former’s obligation and demanding that the latter accept the same.
xxx Compliance with the requisites of a valid consignation is
mandatory. Failure to comply strictly with any of the requisites will
render the consignation void. One of these requisites is a valid prior
tender of payment.30

Here, there is no substantial proof that respondent made a

prior tender of payment to petitioner before filing his motion to
consign the lease rentals. He likewise did not present any evidence
that he deposited before the Provincial Adjudicator and the DARAB
the amount representing said lease rentals.

Finally, respondent’s arguments that he tried to tender

payment to Saliva but the latter declined and that petitioner failed to
show authority to collect lease rentals lack merit. It is basic in the
rule of evidence that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence,
are not equivalent to proof. 31 Hence, respondent’s bare allegations
could not be considered in the absence of any corroborative
evidence.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is GRANTED. The

Decision dated November 28, 2018 and the Resolution dated
February 21, 2020 of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board in DARAB CASE NO. 18836 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated July 21, 2015 of the Office of
the Provincial Adjudicator, Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board, Region IV-A is hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
FLORENCIO M. MAMAUAG, JR.
Associate Justice

30 Del Carmen vs. Spouses Sabordo, G.R. No. 181723, August 11, 2014.
31 Cardinez vs. Spouses Cardinez, G.R. No. 213001, August 4, 2021.
CA-G.R. SP No. 165524 Page 11 of 11
Decision

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
MARY CHARLENE V. HERNANDEZ-AZURA
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
VICTORIA ISABEL A. PAREDES
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twelfth Division