Source: https://attybulao.com/2011/06/27/legal-note-0077-primer-on-tenancy/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:23:54+00:00

Document:
LEGAL NOTE 0077: PRIMER ON TENANCY.
SOURCE: ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR ROLANDO B. SAMSON VS. MERCEDES R. SUSANO AND NORBERTO R. SUSANO (G.R. NO. 179024) ; JULIAN C. CHAN VS. MERCEDES R. SUSANO AND NORBERTO R. SUSANO (G.R. NO. 179086, 30 MAY 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.) (BRIEF TITLE: ESTATE OF SAMSON VS. SUSANO).
R.A. No. 1199, otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines, defines a tenant as a person who, himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates 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 the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under a leasehold tenancy system.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS IN A TENANCY RELATIONSHIP?
For a tenancy relationship to exist between the parties, the following essential elements must be shown: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. The presence of all of these elements must be proved by substantial evidence.
RESPONDENTS ARGUED THAT THAT THERE WAS IMPLIED TENANCY BECAUSE PASTOR ACCEPTED HIS SHARE OF THE PRODUCTION FOR A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME. TO PROVE THEIR CONTENTION, RESPONDENTS PRESENTED THE AFFIDAVITS EXECUTED BY THREE FARMERS FROM ADJOINING LANDHOLDINGS, NAMELY SANTIAGO PACHECO, APOLINARIO FRANCISCO, AND DAMASO MATIAS, STATING THAT THEY KNEW MACARIO TO BE A TENANT OF PASTOR SINCE 1959 AND THAT MACARIO RELIGIOUSLY PAID HIS SHARE OF THE PRODUCE TO PASTOR. ARE THESE THREE AFFIDAVITS SUFFICIENT?
NO. AFFIANTS FAILED TO PROVIDE DETAILS PROVING THE ELEMENTS OF TENANCY RELATIONS.
It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner. Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present.
The affidavits executed by three of respondents’ neighbors are insufficient to establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario. As correctly observed by the estate of Pastor Samson, the affiants did not provide details based on their personal knowledge as to how the crop-sharing agreement was implemented, how much was given by Macario to Pastor, when and where the payments were made, or whether they have at any instance witnessed Pastor receive his share of the harvest from Macario. Such failure is fatal to respondents’ claim particularly since the respondents have the burden of proving their affirmative allegation of tenancy. In fine, the conclusions of the RARAD, DARAB and the CA respecting the existence of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario are not supported by substantial evidence on record.
BUT RARAB DARAB AND CA WERE UNANIMOUS IN RULING THAT THERE WAS TENANCY RELATION. IS THEIR UNANIMOUS DECISION NOT ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT?
NO, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE OR RECORD IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RULING.
The question of whether a tenancy relationship exists is basically a question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The question of whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Such findings of fact may be reviewed by the Court when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures, or if the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.
In the case at bar, while the RARAD, DARAB and the CA are unanimous in their conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Pastor Samson and Macario Susano, no specific evidence was cited to support such conclusion other than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario’s possession and cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 years. Contrary to what is required by law, however, no independent and concrete evidence were adduced by respondents to prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests between Pastor and Macario.
 Annex “H,” CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 89443), p. 91.
 Annex “I,” id. at 92.
 Annex “J,” id. at 93.
 See Heirs of Jose Barredo v. Besañes, G.R. No. 164695, December 13, 2010, p. 6; Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), Inc., supra note 61; and Landicho v. Sia, supra note 60.
 Landicho v. Sia, id. at 619-620.
 Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), Inc., supra note 61 at 249.
 VHJ Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128534, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 392, 398 as cited in Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO), Inc., supra note 61 at 250.
 Adriano v. Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 218, 229.
 Landicho v. Sia, supra note 60 at 615; and Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum Co., Inc., G.R. No. 172146, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 545, 567.
 Ramos Vda. de Brigino v. Ramos, G.R. No. 130260, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 546, 553.
 Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257, 270 (1953).
 Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, Nos. L-66497-98, July 10, 1986, 142 SCRA 593, 609.
« CASE 2011-0130: CLAY & FEATHER INTERNATIONAL, INC., RAUL O. ARAMBULO, AND ADAM E. JIMENEZ III (FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR CLAY AND FEATHER INTL., INC. VS. ALEXANDER T. LICHAYTOO AND CLIFFORD T. LICHAYTOO (G.R. NO. 193105, 30 MAY 2011, NACHURA, J.) SUBJECTS: PROBABLE CAUSE; THEFT. (BRIEF TITLE: CLAY & FEATHER INTERNATIONAL VS. LICHAYTOO).

References: In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.