HEIRS OF FLORENTINO QUILO, NAMELY: BENJAMIN V. QUILO, JAIME V.

QUILO,
CELEDONA Q. RAMIREZ, IMELDA Q. ANCLOTE, ZENAIDA Q. BAITA, ORLANDO V. QUILO,
EVANGELINE Q. PALAGANAS, ARTURO V. QUILO and LOLITA Q. SEISMUNDO, Petitioners,
vs.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES-DAGUPAN BRANCH and SPOUSES ROBERTO
DEL MINDO and CARLINA DEL MINDO, Respondents.

DECISION

SERENO, CJ:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 dated 17 June 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100542, which reversed and set aside the Decision2 dated 30
September 2002 of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (RARAB) of Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan and the Decision3 dated 19 December 2006 of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB).

In reversing the RARAB and DARAB Decisions, the CA found that petitioners had failed to prove
that their predecessor-in-interest was a bona fide tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of
respondents; hence, petitioners cannot claim any right of redemption under Section 12 of Republic
Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code.4 The provision gives
agricultural tenants the right to redeem the landholdings they are cultivating when these are sold to a
third person without their knowledge.

The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:

The spouses Emilio Oliveros and Erlinda de Guzman (spouses Oliveros) owned four parcels of
land.5 In 1966, Florentino Quilo (Quilo) started planting vegetables thereon.6 Sometime in 1975,
Quilo filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a Complaint against the spouses Oliveros
regarding unspecified issues in their alleged agrarian relations.7 Hence, on 12 September 1975, a
Notice of Conference was sent to the spouses by a DAR Team Leader.8 However, the Complaint did
not prosper.

The spouses Oliveros later on mortgaged the parcels of land to the Development Bank of the
Philippines, Dagupan City Branch (respondent bank) to secure a loan, for which they executed an
Affidavit of Non-Tenancy.9 Since they were unable to pay the loan, the mortgage was foreclosed,
and the title to the landholding consolidated with respondent bank.10

On 15 April 1983, respondent bank sold the parcels of land to the spouses Roberto and Carlina del
Mindo (respondent spouses) for ₱34,000.11 Respondent spouses began to fence the subject
landholding shortly after.12

Upon learning about the sale, Quilo filed a Complaint for Redemption with Damages against
respondents with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan (RTC). He alleged that
as an agricultural tenant of the land, he had the preference and the priority to buy it.13 He further said
that he was ready to repurchase it, and that he had deposited with the Clerk of Court the amount of
₱34,000 and other necessary expenses as redemption price.14

However, on 6 May 1991, the RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction in view of the passage
of Republic Act No. 6657,15 which created the DARAB and gave the latter jurisdiction over agrarian
disputes.16 The RTC further directed the parties to litigate their case before the DARAB through the
RARAB.17 On 22 August 1992, Quilo died.18 Hence, his heirs (petitioners) substituted for him in the
pending case before the RARAB.19 The RARAB dismissed the case "for lack of interest of the parties
to proceed with the case,"20 after which Quilo’s heirs filed an appeal with the DARAB.21

On 29 April 1996, the DARAB promulgated a Decision granting the appeal and remanding the
records of the case to the RARAB for its resolution on the merits.22

In the course of the trial before the RARAB, petitioners presented the records of Quilo’s testimony,
which was corroborated by former Barangay (Brgy.) Captain Norberto Taaca (Taaca), incumbent
Brgy. Captain Hermogenes delos Santos (Delos Santos), Rufino Bulatao (Bulatao), and Gerardo
Obillo (Obillo).23 Taaca and Delos Santos confirmed that the parcels of land in question had been
tilled by Quilo and owned by the spouses Oliveros. They further swore that Quilo had delivered a
share of the produce to the said spouses.24 Bulatao and Obillo, neighbors of Quilo, testified that he
had planted on the land.25 In addition to the testimonies, the DAR Notice of Conference dated 12
September 1975 was offered as evidence.26

On the other hand, respondent spouses and respondent bank averred that Quilo was not a tenant,
but a squatter on the land; thus, he was not entitled to redeem the property.27 To support their claim,
they presented the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy executed by the spouses Oliveros and the records of
the Agrarian Reform Team. These records certified that Quilo was not an agricultural lessee of the
properties, nor was the subject landholding within the scope of a leasehold or of Operation Land
Transfer (OLT).28

The RARAB ruled for petitioners.29 It said that Quilo was a bonafide tenant based on his testimony
that he had been in possession of the land and had been cultivating it since 1975, a claim
corroborated by other witnesses.30 It also gave no weight to the Affidavit of Non-Tenancy issued by
the spouses Oliveros, since it was common knowledge that landowners routinely execute such
affidavits to enable them to mortgage their lands to banks.31 Furthermore, the Certification that the
subject landholding was not within the scope of an OLT was not final, because not every tenancy
relationship was registered.32 The dispositive portion of the Decision33 dated 30 September 2002
reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby issued as follows:

1. DECLARING the deceased complainant Florentino Quilo as the bonafide tenant of the
subject landholding, hence, his heirs are entitled to the right of redemption on said land;

2. DECLARING that the reasonable redemption price of the said landholding is Thirty [sic]
Four Thousand (₱34,000.00) pesos as appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale;

3. ORDERING the spouses-respondents Roberto and Carlina del Mindo to execute a Deed
of Reconveyance or Deed of Sale of subject landholding in favor of the Heirs of Florentino
Quilo, the complainant.

4. DISMISSING the complaint with regard to respondent DBP; and

5. DISMISSING the ancillary claims of complainants and the counterclaims of respondents

for lack of evidence and merit. SO ORDERED.34

Dissatisfied, respondents appealed to the DARAB, which upheld the RARAB ruling.35 The DARAB
ruled that Quilo was a tenant, because the records showed that he had been cultivating the subject
landholding as early as 1975.36 The tenancy was further bolstered by the Notice of Conference sent
by DAR to the spouses Oliveros, informing them that Quilo had sought the assistance of the office
regarding aspects of their agrarian relations.37 Lastly, the DARAB said that the element of sharing
was established, because Quilo had been depositing his lease rentals with the RTC Clerk of Court,
and there were withdrawals of the deposits by respondent spouses.38

Undaunted, respondents filed a Rule 43 Petition for Review39 with the CA, questioning the basis of
both the RARAB and the DARAB rulings in fact and in law.40

The CA in its Decision41 dated 17 June 2008 held that the RARAB and the DARAB were mistaken in
finding the existence of a tenancy relationship, as the quantum of proof required for tenancy –
substantial evidence – had not been successfully met.42 It said that there was no evidence that the
spouses Oliveros had given their consent to the tenancy relationship; and that although the
corroborating witnesses testified that Quilo was cultivating the land, this did not necessarily mean
that he was doing so as a tenant.43 In addition, the element of sharing was not proven, because the
DARAB’s finding that Quilo had been depositing his lease rentals and that there had been
withdrawals therefrom had no basis on the records.44 Petitioners then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,45 which was denied by the CA.46

Hence, the instant Petition47 in which petitioners contend that a factual review by this Court is proper,
because the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the DARAB and the RARAB.48 We asked
respondents to file a Comment,49 and petitioners a Consolidated Reply50 – requirements they both
complied with.51 The parties also filed their respective Memoranda in compliance with the Court’s
Resolution dated 8 July 2009.52

Petitioners, in their Memorandum,53 reiterated the arguments in the earlier Petition they had filed. On
the other hand, respondent bank and respondent spouses said in their respective Memoranda54 that
petitioners only raised factual issues, which were improper in a Rule 45 Petition.55 Also, the CA’s
findings did not warrant a factual review as an exception to the general rule for Rule 45
Petitions.56 According to respondents, the CA never deviated from the facts gathered and narrated
by the DARAB. It merely exercised its sound judicial discretion in appreciating the facts based on
existing laws and jurisprudence.57

The main issue before us is whether a tenancy relationship existed between Quilo and the spouses
Oliveros.

We DENY the Petition.

Propriety of a Factual Review

As respondents question the propriety of a factual review of the case, the Court shall resolve this
matter first.

The determination of whether a person is an agricultural tenant is basically a question of fact.58 As a

general rule, questions of fact are not proper in a petition filed under Rule 45. Corollary to this rule,
findings of fact of the CA are final, conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on appeal, provided that they
are borne out by the records or based on substantial evidence.59 However, as we held in Adriano v.
Tanco,60 when the findings of facts of the DARAB and the CA contradict each other, it is crucial to go
through the evidence and documents on record as an exception61 to the rule.

We now rule on the main issue.

Failure to Establish the Tenancy Relationship

A tenancy relationship is a juridical tie that arises between a landowner and a tenant once they
agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the
landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and
cultivating the land.62 The relationship cannot be presumed.63 All the requisite conditions for its
existence must be proven, to wit:

(1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant.

(2) The subject is agricultural land.

(3) There is consent by the landowner.

(4) The purpose is agricultural production.

(5) There is personal cultivation.

(6) There is a sharing of harvests.64

We stress that petitioners have the burden of proving their affirmative allegation of tenancy.65 Indeed,
it is elementary that one who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of
proof.66 Petitioners in the instant case failed to prove the elements of consent and sharing of
harvests.

There is no evidence that the spouses Oliveros consented to a tenancy relationship with Quilo.

There is no evidence that the spouses Oliveros agreed to enter into a tenancy relationship with
Quilo.  His self-serving statement that he was a tenant was not sufficient to prove
1âwphi1

consent.67 Precisely, proof of consent is needed to establish tenancy.

Independent and concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner.68 Although

petitioners presented the Affidavits of Obillo and Bulatao, as well as the DAR Notice of
Conference69 dated 12 September 1975, these documents merely established that Quilo occupied
and cultivated the land.70 Specifically, the Notice of Conference and the affidavits only showed that
first, Quilo filed a Complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding the land he was cultivating; and
second, the affidavits confirmed merely that Quilo had been planting on the land. These documents
in no way confirm that his presence on the land was based on a tenancy relationship that the
spouses Oliveros had agreed to.

Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert the tiller into an
agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.71 Despite this jurisprudential rule, the DARAB
chose to uphold the finding of the RARAB that there was a tenancy relationship between Quilo and
the spouses Oliveros. Hence, the CA committed no error in reversing the DARAB Decision.

On the matter of the existence of a sharing agreement between the parties, the pieces of evidence
presented by petitioners to show the sharing agreement were limited to Quilo’s self-serving
statement and the Affidavit of Bulatao. Bulatao was Quilo’s neighbor who stated that the latter had
given his share of the harvest to the spouses Oliveros.72 These are not sufficient to prove the
existence of a sharing agreement, as we have held in Rodriguez v. Salvador:73
The affidavits of petitioners’ neighbors declaring that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest
received their share in the harvest are not sufficient. Petitioners should have presented receipts or
any other evidence to show that there was sharing of harvest and that there was an agreed system
of sharing between them and the landowners.

The CA was also on point when it said that nothing in the records supported the DARAB finding that
a sharing agreement existed because of Quilo’s deposited rentals with the Clerk of Court of the RTC
of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 46.74 Firstly, we do not see how that deposit can prove the
existence of a sharing agreement between him and the spouses Oliveros. Secondly, a perusal of the
findings of fact of the RARAB, as affirmed by the DARAB, reveals that there was never any
allegation from any of the parties, or any finding by the RARAB, that Quilo had deposited his rentals
with the branch Clerk of Court, much less, that there were withdrawals therefrom. The only mention
of a deposit of any kind can be found in the RARAB Decision and Quilo’s Complaint where it was
merely claimed that Quilo was willing and able to pay the redemption price of ₱34,000, and that he
had deposited the amount with the branch Clerk of Court.75

WHEREFORE, In view of the foregoing, we AFFIRM in toto the Decision76 dated 17 June 2008 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100542.

SO ORDERED.