Case Digest: MONICO SAN DIEGO v. EUFROCINIO EVANGELISTA

MONICO SAN DIEGO v. EUFROCINIO EVANGELISTA

479 SCRA 666 (2006)

The contract, as well as contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties, is used to determine the nature of the relationship of the parties.

Monico San Diego has been an agricultural tenant in a parcel of land owned by Andres Evangelista. After Andres Evangelista died, his son Eufrocinio Evangelista inherited the property which part of it was planted with rice and the remaining with bamboo.

San Diego filed a complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) against Evangelista for maintenance of peaceful possession, enjoyment, and damages with respect to the bambooland portion of the property. Evangelista countered that San Diego is a tenant only with respect to the riceland portion of the property, the bambooland portion not being tenanted.

The DARAB held in favor of San Diego but the Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB decision citing Monsanto v. Zerna where the Supreme Court laid down the elements of a tenancy relationship. Following the guidelines set forth in Monsanto, the Agricultural Leasehold Contract of San Diego with the late Andres Evangelista excluded the bamboo land area, for the simple reason that requisites of ―personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or lessee‖ and ―harvest sharing between the landowner and the tenant or lessee.” are wanting in the instant case. Moreover, the annual payment of lease clearly showed that the said payments correspond only to the yield of rice over the portion of riceland and not on the disputed bamboo land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not San Diego has a right over the bamboo portion of the land for allegedly being part of the leased property

HELD:

The contract relied upon by San Diego is clearly worded. It provides that “an agricultural leasehold relation . . . is . . . created . . . on a farm lot which is a portion of a parcel of land.” Art. 1370 of the New Civil Code which provides that if the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control, thus applies.

Acts contemporaneous and subsequent to the execution of the contract show that the parties intended to establish a tenancy relationship only as regards the rice-planted portion of the property. Thus, petitioner has been paying rentals in palay, not in bamboo.

Neither does San Diego’s suggestion that there was a prevailing custom entitling landlords to a share of 10 cavans of palay per hectare lie, it not having been proven in accordance with Article 12 of the New Civil Code which provides: A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.

The evidence proffered by Evangelista on the other hand abundantly shows that the bambooland portion of the property has always been untenanted, which evidence has not been controverted by petitioner.

In fine, the contract, as well as the acts of both San Diego and Evangelista contemporaneous and subsequent to the execution thereof, shows that the parties established a tenancy relationship only with respect to the riceland portion of the property.