FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168164. July 5, 2010.]

VICENTE ADRIANO , petitioner, vs . ALICE TANCO, GERALDINE TANCO,

RONALD TANCO, and PATRICK TANCO , respondents.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO , J : p

Laws which have for their object the preservation and maintenance of social
justice are not only meant to favor the poor and the underprivileged. They apply with
equal force to those who, notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are
equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social justice is not a license to
trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the poor, where no act of
injustice or abuse is being committed against them. 1 cEHSIC

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the October 12, 2004 Decision 2 of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 74465 which reversed and set aside the
June 17, 1998 Decision 3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB). The DARAB Decision a rmed the Decision 4 of the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) which declared and recognized petitioner Vicente Adriano
(Vicente) as tenant/lessee of the landholding subject matter of this case. Also assailed
is the May 4, 2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration
Factual Antecedents
On December 18, 1975, respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a parcel of
land consisting of 28.4692 hectares located in Norzagaray, Bulacan. 5 The land was
devoted to mango plantation. Later on, it was partitioned among the respondents (Alice
and her three children, namely, Geraldine, Ronald, and Patrick), each receiving 7
hectares, except Alice who got an extra 0.4692 hectare.
Controversy arose when Alice sent to Vicente a letter 6 dated January 16, 1995
informing him that subject landholding is not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). She asked him to vacate the property as soon as possible.
Proceedings before the PARAD
Seeing the letter of Alice as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject
farmland which might impair his security of tenure as a tenant, Vicente led before the
regional o ce of DARAB in Region III a Complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. 7 He averred that in 1970, Arsenio Tanco (Arsenio), 8 the husband of Alice,
instituted him as tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. Since then, he has
been performing all phases of farm works, such as clearing, pruning, smudging, and
spraying of the mango trees. The fruits were then divided equally between them. He
also alleged that he was allowed to improve and establish his home at the old building
left by Ang Tibay Shoes located at the middle of the plantation. Presently, he is in actual
possession of and continues to cultivate the land.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In their Answer, 9 respondents denied having instituted any tenant on their
property. They stressed that Vicente never worked and has no employer-employee
relationship with Geraldine, Ronald, and Patrick. Insofar as Alice is concerned,
respondents asserted that Vicente is not a tenant but a mere regular farm worker. They
claimed that in April 1994 and April 1995, upon the intercession of the Municipal
Agrarian Reform O cer (MARO), Alice agreed to avail the services of Vicente for the
speci c purpose of spraying the mango trees. In consideration thereof, Alice also
agreed to pay Vicente an amount equivalent to 50% of the produce, which was then the
prevailing practice in Bulacan. Respondents maintained that Alice agreed to this setup
since the MARO made it clear to both parties that the contract was for the speci c
purpose of spraying the mango trees only and that the same will not ripen into tenancy
relationship.
Respondents likewise alleged that it was impossible for the late Arsenio to
institute Vicente as tenant in 1970 since the Tanco family acquired the mango
plantation from Manufacturers Bank & Trust Co. only in December 1975.
On April 23, 1996, the PARAD rendered a Decision 1 0 in favor of Vicente. It opined
that since Vicente was performing functions more than just a mere caretaker and was
even allowed to live in subject landholding with his family, he is therefore a tenant. The
dispositive portion of the PARAD's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
(1) Declaring and recognizing plaintiff Vicente Adriano as
tenant/lessee of subject landholding;

(2) Ordering the MARO of Norzagaray to cause the preparation of an

Agricultural Leasehold Contract between the plaintiff and the
defendants;

(3) Plaintiff must be maintained in peaceful possession and

cultivation of the landholding.

SO ORDERED. 1 1

Respondents moved for reconsideration which was denied. 1 2

Proceedings before the DARAB
Thus, respondents appealed to the DARAB which a rmed the ruling of the
PARAD. It held that since the landholding is an agricultural land, that respondents
allowed Vicente to take care of the mango trees, and that they divided the fruits equally
between them, then an implied tenancy was created.
Proceedings before the CA
Twice rebuffed but still undeterred, respondents elevated the case to the CA via a
Petition for Review 1 3 under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. They contended, among
others, that the essential elements of tenancy relationship are wanting in the instant
controversy. They claimed that their property is not an agricultural land, but lies within a
mineralized area; Alice hired Vicente as a caretaker and, therefore, the nature of their
relationship is that of an employer-employee relationship; and, there is no proof that the
parties share in the harvest. With regard to DARAB's theory of implied lease,
respondents maintained that they never authorized Vicente to spray the mango trees.
Respondents insisted that Alice agreed to engage the services of Vicente for the
speci c purpose of spraying the mango trees in 1994 and 1995 for humanitarian
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 reasons in order to recompense him for the expenses he had already spent for the
unauthorized spraying. The agreement was made upon the intercession of the MARO,
who emphasized that the same would not ripen into tenancy relationship. ACEIac

Respondents further contended that, if at all, Vicente's claim should be limited to

the property assigned to Alice because she was the only one who hired him as a
caretaker. In fact, he had been consistently receiving a monthly salary as a hired
caretaker, as well as bonuses, as shown by several cash vouchers 1 4 attached to their
petition. Furthermore, it is impossible for Vicente, who is already old, to personally
cultivate the entire 28.4692 hectares of land all by himself.
Impressed with respondents' arguments, the CA rendered a Decision in their
favor. Thus:
Prescinding from the foregoing premises, the instant petition is GRANTED.
The Decision dated 18 June 1998 and the Resolution dated 28 November 2002 of
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another judgment is entered, declaring
respondent Vicente Adriano NOT a tenant of respondents Alice K. Tanco [TCT-No.
T-93.233 (M)-7.4692 hectares], Geraldine Tanco [TCT No. 93.230 (M)-7 hectares],
Ronald Tanco [TCT No. T-93.232 (M)-7 hectares], and Patrick Tanco [TCT No. T-
93.231 (M)-7 hectares], whose subject landholdings are all located at San Mateo,
Norzagaray, Bulacan, respondent being a mere employee or hired
caretaker/overseer/worker of petitioner Alice K. Tanco with respect to her property
in question, covering 7.4692 hectares, and thus respondent is NOT entitled to
security of tenure under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Republic Act
No. 6657).

Costs against respondent.

SO ORDERED. 1 5

Vicente sought reconsideration, which the CA denied in its May 4, 2005 Resolution.
16

Issues
Hence, this petition. From the parties' exchange of pleadings, it appears that the
fundamental issues to be resolved in this petition in the order of their importance are as
follows:
I

WHETHER THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW

WHICH CAN BE REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT. 1 7

II
WHETHER THE FINDINGS OF THE PARAD AND THE DARAB THAT VICENTE IS A
BONA FIDE TENANT IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 1 8
Our Ruling
This case falls under the exceptions
where the Supreme Court may review
factual issues.
Respondents, who put forward the rst issue, contend that Vicente is actually
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 raising factual issues which is not allowed in a petition for review on certiorari led
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They maintain that under Rule 45, only questions of
law may be raised as issues and resolved by this Court.
Vicente, on the other hand, concedes that the issues set forth in his petition are
not questions of law. Nevertheless, he counter-argues that this case falls under the
exceptions where this Court may pass upon questions of fact.
We agree with Vicente. The determination of whether a person is an agricultural
tenant is basically a question of fact. 1 9 And, as a general rule, questions of fact are not
proper in a petition led under Rule 45. 2 0 But since the ndings of facts of the DARAB
and the CA contradict each other, it is crucial to go through the evidence and
documents on record as a matter of exception 2 1 to the rule. 2 2
The findings of the agrarian tribunals
that tenancy relationship exists are not
supported by substantial evidence.
Vicente posits that the CA erred in substituting its own ndings with the
unanimous ndings of the PARAD and the DARAB. He asserts that factual ndings of
administrative agencies are entitled to great respect and even nality since they have
acquired expertise on the eld for which they were created. The only requirement is that
said ndings must be supported by substantial evidence. Vicente believes that the
findings of the agrarian tribunals are supported by substantial evidence since he did not
observe regular working hours, handles all phases of farm works, and lives in an old
building located at the middle of the plantation.
We are not persuaded. aESIHT

Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which 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. 2 3
The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that
one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. 2 4 For tenancy
relationship to exist, the following essential requisites must be present: (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. 2 5 All the requisites must concur in order to establish the existence of tenancy
relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites is fatal. 2 6
After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we a rm the ndings of
the CA that the essential requisites of consent and sharing are lacking.
The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no proof that
the landowners recognized Vicente, or that they hired him, as their legitimate tenant.
And, although Vicente claims that he is a tenant of respondents' agricultural lot in
Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that he has continuously cultivated and openly occupied it, no
evidence was presented to establish the presence of consent other than his self-
serving statements. These cannot su ce because independent and concrete evidence
is needed to prove consent of the landowner. 2 7
Likewise, the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking. Independent
evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that there was sharing of the
harvest between the landowner and the tenant. 2 8 Self-serving statements are not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 sufficient. 2 9
Here, there was no evidence presented to show sharing of harvest in the context
of a tenancy relationship between Vicente and the respondents. The only evidence
submitted to establish the purported sharing of harvests were the allegations of
Vicente which, as discussed above, were self-serving and have no evidentiary value.
Moreover, petitioner's allegations of continued possession and cultivation do not
support his cause. It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural
land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm worker into an agricultural tenant
recognized under agrarian laws. 3 0 It is essential that, together with the other requisites
of tenancy relationship, the agricultural tenant must prove that he transmitted the
landowner's share of the harvest. 3 1
Neither can we agree with the DARAB's theory of implied tenancy because the
landowner never acquiesced to Vicente's cultivating the land. Besides, for implied
tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be
present. 3 2
Lastly, it is well to stress that Vicente has the burden of proving his a rmative
allegation of tenancy. It is elementary that he who alleges the a rmative of the issue
has the burden of proof. And if the petitioner upon whom rests the burden of proving
his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he
bases his claim, the respondents are under no obligation to prove their exception or
defense. In the case at bench, aside from being self-serving, some of the allegations of
Vicente are contradicted by the evidence on record. While he claims that Arsenio
instituted him as tenant in 1970 and has since then occupied and cultivated
respondents' landholdings, the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by the latter
indubitably shows that Alice (or the Tanco family) acquired the same only in 1975.
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is DENIED . The assailed October 12, 2004
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74465 declaring petitioner Vicente
Adriano not a tenant of the respondents and thus not entitled to security of tenure
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and the May 4, 2005 Resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED . AcIaST

SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro and Perez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518
SCRA 203, 220.
2.CA rollo, pp. 247-304; penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong and
concurred in by Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Lucenito N. Tagle.
3.Rollo, pp. 32-37.

4.CA rollo, pp. 93-100.

5.See Deed of Absolute Sale, id. at 157-158.

6.Id. at 77.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 7.Id. at 71-74.

8.While in its April 23, 1996 Decision (supra note 4) PARAD considered Arsenio Tanco to
have passed away, respondents inserted a footnote in their Memorandum stating
that Arsenio Tanco is still alive.
9.CA rollo, pp. 78-79.

10.Id. at 93-100.

11.Id. at 100.

12.See Order dated June 26, 1996, id. at 101.

13.Id. at 2-53.

14.Id. at 121-135.

15.Id. at 303-304.

16.Id. at 329-330.

17.See respondents' Memorandum, rollo, pp. 406-421.

18.See petitioner's Memorandum, id. at 364-378.

19.Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum, Co., Inc., G.R. No. 172146, July 30, 2008, 560 SCRA 545,
567.
20.RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.

21.The other recognized exceptions are: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmise and conjecture; (2) when the inference made is
manifestly mistaken; (3) when there is a grave abuse; (4) when the judgment is
based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings
are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8);
when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10)
when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (Sarmiento v.
Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 834, 846 [1998]).
22.De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 316,
320.
23.REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1199, Section 6, (Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines).

24.De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., supra note 22 at 321.

25.Id.

26.Cornes v. Leal Realty Centrum, Co., Inc., supra note 19 at 576-568.

27.Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, supra note 1 at 214-215; Berenguer, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-60287, August 17, 1988, 164 SCRA 431, 438-439.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 28.Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, id.

29.Id.

30.Danan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132579, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 113, 126.

31.Ambayec v. Court of Appeals, 499 Phil. 536, 545 (2005).

32.Landicho v. Sia, G.R. No. 169472, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 602, 621.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com