Case Digest: LEONARDO M. DALWAMPO, et al. v. QUINOCOL FARMERS

LEONARDO M. DALWAMPO, et al. v. QUINOCOL FARMERS

488 SCRA 208 (2006)

For a tenancy relationship to exist, the following essential elements must concur: 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 the tenant or agricultural lessee.

The lots comprising the Almendras Coconut Plantation are alleged to have been part of the pre-war Y. Furukawa-Darong Plantation Company which has been reverted to the public domain as ―spoils of war‖ and placed under the administration of the National Abaca Fibers Corporation (NAFCO). Upon the dissolution of NAFCO, the lots were placed under the administration of the Board of Liquidators (Board) for sale or transfer to qualified occupants-applicants. The Board awarded the lots to several individuals. The Board also executed the deeds of sale to the awardees. There is no showing however that those certificates of title were issued to the awardees although tax declarations were issued wherein the name ―Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr.‖ was indicated as administrator. There is no showing on how Alejandro Almendras, Sr.(Almendras) acquired title over the lots.

When Almendras suffered a stroke, a petition for guardianship was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC granted and appointed Paul C. Almendras and Elizabeth A. Alba as guardians over his properties. The guardians later sold, with the approval of the court, the lots comprising the plantation to the petitioners Dalawampo et al. Thereafter, herein respondents Quinocol Farmers, Farmworkers and Settlers Association (QFFSA) et al. filed several complaints a for ejectment before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against Southern Davao Development Co., Inc. (SODACO), wherein petitioner Dalawampo was the Farm Manager.

Respondents QFFSA et al. also filed a complaint for annulment of the deeds of sale, enforcement of preemptive rights, injunction, and damages against several persons including herein petitioners before the Department of Agrarian Reform Office of the Provincial Adjudicator. The Provincial Adjudicator decided in favor of QFFSA et al. He declared the conveyances in favor of petitioners Dalawampo et al. Those have no force and effect as the guardians of Almendras who, in the meantime died on August 3, 1995, could not have transferred to them ownership of the lots in the plantation which was, at the time of the sale, still titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator. The Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB decision and reinstated that of the Provincial Adjudicator. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the QFFSA et al. are legitimate tenants of the Almendras Coconut Plantation

HELD:

It is settled that the existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. There must be evidence to prove it. Mere allegation is not evidence nor equivalent to proof.

For a tenancy relationship to exist, the following essential elements must concur: 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 the tenant or agricultural lessee.

The present controversy is an agrarian dispute not any different from the case pending before the DAR because in both, the property involved is an agricultural land and QFFSA et al. claim to be the tenants thereon.

The RTC therefore erred when it treated this case as an ordinary ejectment suit and upheld the jurisdiction of the inferior court. It compounded its error when it sustained the annulment of the sale by the inferior court, contrary to the rule that in ejectment cases, inferior courts cannot adjudicate on ownership and regional trial courts cannot resolve the same on appeal because proceedings in such cases being summary in nature, they are inadequate for the full ventilation of issues involving title to controverted real property.

Of the essential elements of a tenancy relationship, the records do not show that the first, third, and fourth elements had been proved by substantial evidence. No written tenancy contract or proof of acts implying a mutual agreement to enter into a tenancy contract between Almendras and respondents was proffered.

The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It also is a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important. Neither the fifth element – personal cultivation by the tenant or agricultural lessee which “includes all activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants or trees and husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may bring forth more products or fruits” – was proved.