Endaya vs CA

G.R. No. 88113

Petitioners: Spouses Titus L. Endaya and Glenda Trinidad;

Respondent: Pedro Fideli

Facts:

 The Spouses Natividad Trinidad and Cesar San Diego owned a piece of agricultural land
at San Pioquinto, Malvar, Batangas, devoted to rice and corn. Fideli has been cultivating
this land since 1934 as a tenant of the Spouses under a fifty-fifty (50-50) sharing
agreement.

 In May 1974-May 1978, a lease contract for the same land was executed between the
Spouses San Diego and one Regino Cassanova for the period May 1974-May 1978. This
was later renewed in May 1980. Fideli signed both contract as witness and continuously
cultivated the land, sharing equally with Cassanova the net produce of the harvests.

 On January 6, 1980, the Spouses San Diego sold the land to Spouses Titus L. Endaya and
Glenda Trinidad; Spouses Rico L. Endaya and Nanette Aquino; and Spouses Josephine L.
Endaya and Leandro Bantug for the sum of P26,000.00. The sale was registered with the
Register of Deeds of Batangas and a Transfer Certificate of Title was duly issued on
January 7, 1981. Fideli continued to farm the land although petitioners claim that private
respondent was told immediately after the sale to vacate the land. 

 Due to petitioners’ persistent demand for Fideli to vacate the land, the latter filed in April
1985 a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan, Batangas praying that he be
declared the agricultural tenant of petitioners.

 Petitioners contend that when the original landowners, the Spouses San Diego, entered
into a lease contract with Regino Cassanova, the agricultural leasehold relationship
between the Spouses San Diego and Fideli was thereby terminated. They argue that a
landowner cannot have a civil law lease contract with one person and at the same time
have an agricultural leasehold agreement with another over the same land. It is further
argued that because private respondent consented to the lease contract between the
Spouses San Diego and Cassanova, signing as he did the lease agreement and the renewal
contract as witness thereof, private respondent has waived his rights as an agricultural
lessee.
  RTC decided in favor of petitioners by holding that private respondent is not an
agricultural lessee of the land now owned by petitioners and ordered Pedro Fideli to
vacate the landholding deliver possession thereof to the defendants.

 The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and declared private respondent to be
the agricultural lessee of the subject landholding.

Issue: Whether or not Fideli is an an agricultural lessee of the land in question.

The Court ruled that private respondent is the agricultural lessee over the land owned by
petitioners. As such, private respondent's security of tenure must be respected by petitioners.

The fact that the landowner entered into a civil lease contract over the subject
landholding and gave the lessee the authority to oversee the farming of the land is not among the
causes provided by law for the extinguishment of the agricultural leasehold relation. The
transactions involving the agricultural land over which an agricultural leasehold subsists
resulting in change of ownership, will not terminate the right of the agricultural lessee who is
given protection by the law by making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the
landowner's successor in interest. 

R.A. No. 3844 (1963), as amended By R.A. No. 6839 (1971), abolished share tenancy
throughout the Philippines from 1971 and established the agricultural leasehold system by
operation of law. 

Section 7: 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 there from unless authorized by the Court for
causes herein provided.

Sec. 10: Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc.
— The agricultural leasehold relation under this code shall not be extinguished by mere
expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or
transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells,
alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee
thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the
agricultural lessor.

Tenants are guaranteed security of tenure, meaning, the continued enjoyment and
possession of their landholding except when their dispossession had been authorized by virtue of
a final and executory judgment, which is not so in the case at bar.(Catorce v. Court of Appeals)

In case of transfer or in case of lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship
between the landowner and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the
tenant or protect him from being unjustly dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the land;
in other words, the purpose of the law in question is to maintain the tenants in the peaceful
possession and cultivation of the land or afford them protection against unjustified dismissal
from their holdings. (Primero v. CAR, 101 Phil. 675)

Castillo vs CA
G.R. No. 98028
January 27, 1992

Petitioner: Gregorio Castillo

Facts:

 Alberto Ignacio is allegedly the agricultural tenant of Gregorio Castillo in the latter's parcel
of land in Cut-cut, Pulilan, Bulacan;

 Sometime in April 1985, Castillo requested Ignacio to allow him to construct a resthouse in
said land to which the latter agreed. This agreement was embodied in a "Kasunduan".
However, Castillo violated the said agreement, cut fruit-bearing trees on the land in question
and filled with adobe stones the area devoted by Ignacio to the planting of vegetables.
 Ignacio filed a complaint asking for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
Castillo from further cutting fruit-bearing trees and from committing further acts of
dispossession against Ignacio. The injunction was granted.

 Castillo contends that the private respondent is not his agricultural tenant and is merely a
"magsisiga" (smudger) of the landholding in question; that he did not ask permission from
Ignacio to construct a rest house on subject land, since as owner thereof, he had the right to
do so; that he was merely exercising his right of ownership when he cut certain trees in the
subject premises; that when the conflict was referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform-
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (MAR-BALA) Office in Malolos, Bulacan, Atty.
Benjamin Yambao of the MAR (Ministry of Agrarian Reform) prepared the "Kasunduan"
attached to Ignacio complaint, but Castillo said that he had some misgivings about some
words therein, Atty. Yambao assured him that he need not worry because the respondent
could not be a "kasamang magsasaka" of his mango land because there is nothing to cultivate
or till in said land.

 Castillo also insist that petitioner insists that for a person to claim tenancy relationship, he
must be an occupant or must be in physical possession of the agricultural land. He alleges
that, Alberto Ignacio, being a mere smudger (magsisiga) of the mango land, no tenancy
relationship can exist between them absent the element of physical possession.

 On September 28, 1988, the trial court rendered judgment declaring that no tenancy
relationship exists between the petitioner and the private respondent. The trial court insist
that Ignacio has never performed on the property in question any of the acts of cultivation
contemplated by the law as essential to the creation of an agricultural tenancy relationship. In
Absent the important factor of cultivation, no tenancy relationship has ever existed between
the plaintiff and the defendant over the property involved in the instant case.

 The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court. The respondent
appellate court declared that there exists a tenancy relationship between Alberto Ignacio and
Gregorio Castillo and permanently enjoined the latter from disturbing the respondent's
peaceful possession as tenant of said land.

Issue: whether or not a tenancy relationship exists between Alberto Ignacio and Gregorio
Castillo.

Ruling:

The SC ruled that there is no tenancy relationship between Alberto Ignacio and Gregorio
Castillo. SC agreed with the trial court that the element of personal cultivation is absent. SC also
find no strong and cogent reason which justifies the appellate court's deviation from the findings
and conclusions of the trial court. As pointed out in Hernandez v. Intermediate Appellate
Court (189 SCRA 758 [1990]), in agrarian cases, all that is required is mere substantial evidence.
Hence, the agrarian court's findings of fact which went beyond the minimum evidentiary support
demanded by law, that is supported by substantial evidence, are final and conclusive and cannot
be reversed by the appellate tribunal. Court of Appeals is mandated by law to affirm the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, acting as an Agrarian Court, if the findings of fact in said decision
are supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions stated therein are not clearly against
the law and jurisprudence.

Moreover, the Agricultural Tenancy Act defines "agricultural tenancy" as the physical
possession by a person of a land devoted to agriculture belonging to or legally possessed by,
another for the purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his
immediate farm household, in consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with
the latter, or to pay a price certain, either in produce or in money, or in both. (Sec. 3, R.A. No.
1199; 50 O.G. 4655-56).

The essential requisites of tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and
the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) the purpose is agricultural production; (4) there
is consideration which consist of sharing the harvest; (5) there is consent to the tenant to work on
the land and (6) there is personal cultivation by him. (Qua v. Court of Appeals (198 SCRA 236
[1991])

A tenant has possession of the land only through personal cultivation. Thus, in the instant
case, the key factor in ascertaining the existence of a landowner-tenant relationship is whether or
not there is personal cultivation of the land by the private respondent. (Gagola v. Court of
Agrarian Relations (18 SCRA 992 [1966])

The fact that the source of livelihood of the private respondents is not derived from the
lots they are allegedly tenanting is indicative of non-agricultural tenancy relationship. (Qua
v. Court of Appeals  (supra))

It is a well-settled rule that all the requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
relationship between the parties and the absence of one or more requisites do not make the
alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure tenant. This is so because
unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of
tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy
laws. (Qua v. Court of Appeals, supra citing Tiongson v. Court of Appeals, 130 SCRA 482
[1984]).