The land involved here was a 2.7 hectares of land mainly planted with coconuts. It was inherited by Eddie from his parents. When Eddie took over the administration of the land, Aling Juana was staying therein specifically tasked as patao to prevent the entry of intruders and thieves of coconuts. As patao she received 20 percent share of the net harvest. The other phases of the farm work of cultivation and agricultural production were done by other workers: the plucking of coconuts was done by the magkakawit, the gathering of fallen nuts by the magsisimot, the husking of the nuts by magtatapas, and the transportation on horseback or by carabao-drawn sleds was done by the maghahakot or maghihila. They were all separately paid by Eddie.
In 1971 Aling Juana was no longer up to the task due to old age. So she recommended Mang Tino to succeed her. Eddie acceded and gave Mang Tino the same compensation that Aling Juana used to receive. Mang Tino was not involved in other phases of the farm work although he used to perform odd jobs as a sideline for which he was compensated by Eddie. He once planted coconut trees and lanzones on the landholding for which he was compensated with cash equivalent of 20 percent of the net proceeds from the sale of the produce even if he did not tend the growing plants.
In 1995, Mang Tino went to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of his town and requested the execution of a leasehold contract between him and Eddie, alleging that he was Eddie’s tenant. He presented his (1) affidavit to this effect; (2) receipts showing the alleged sharing between him and Eddie of the net proceeds from the harvests; (3) certification from the barangay captain that he was a resident thereof; ( 4) certification from the municipal assessor’s office listing Eddie’s land over which Eddie was paying real estate taxes; and (5) Mediator’s report of the mediation conference between the parties.
Eddie vehemently denied the existence of tenancy relationship with Mang Tino. And when he learned that Mang Tino even abandoned the landholding as he and his family moved to another barangay, he stopped paying Mang Tino the usual 20 percent share of the net proceeds of the coconut harvests.
Thus in 1997, Mang Tino filed a complaint against Eddie for illegal withholding of shares; maintenance of peaceful possession and execution of the leasehold tenancy contract. The case eventually reached the Court of Appeals (CA) when the Dept. of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) ruled in Mang Tino’s favor and reversed the earlier ruling of the Provincial Agrarian reform Adjudicator (PARAD) dismissing Mang Tino"s complaint. The CA in turn reversed Darab’s ruling and decided that Mang Tino was not a tenant but a mere patao engaged in providing security for the plantation rather than in undertaking agricultural production, snice the gathering, piling, husking and hauling of coconuts were done by outside labor. The CA also held that in transferring to another barangay he abandoned the landholding and was no longer entitled to compensation.
Was the CA correct?
Yes.
The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: (1) the subject of the relationship is agricultural land; (2) the parties to the relationship are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant; and (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant. It is doctrinal that with respect to a parcel of land the absence of one requisite does not make an occupant or a cultivator or a planter a de jure tenant.
Mang Tino’s evidence fails to establish all the essential requisites for the existence of a tenancy relationship. The exhibits he presented failed to show one essential element in establishing the existence of a tenancy relationship: the personal cultivation of the land by him alone or with the aid of his immediate farm household. While it is true that he had once planted coconut trees and lanzones on the land in question, he had been aptly paid for his labor. Neither had he tended the growing plants. Eddie had availed himself of hired labor for the job of gathering, piling, husking and hauling of the coconuts. Whenever Mang Tino took a hand in any phase of the work, he was aptly paid for his labor.
Because of his utter failure to prove that he has personally cultivated the subject property, Mang Tino’s claim of being a tenant collapses. Not being a bona fide tenant, he is not entitled to the benefits granted by the tenancy laws. (Esquivel vs. Reyes etc. G. R. 152957 Sept. 8, 2003)