ANGEL CHICO, 

petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

CELESTINA P. JOSON, who is acting for herself and in representation of
her co-owner namely: BERNARDA, DEMETRIA, CELSA, MAURA, JULIANA,
MELENCIO and RAFAEL, all surnamed JOSON, respondents.
 

G.R. No. 134735.  December 5, 2000.

FACTS:
Angel Chico and Eugenia Esguerra were agricultural lessees over a parcel of
land owned by the Josons.
The said parcel of land was initially leased by Esguerra.
Without the consent of the Joson, Esguerra allowed Chico to rent the land in
exchange of consideration.
The Josons now prayed in their complaint for Esquerra to have lost her tenancy
right over the disputed land that Chico, his assigns and heirs be ordered to
vacate the 1.5 hectare lot formerly being tenanted by Esguerra and for Chico to
pay the fees due to NIA.
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board PROVINCIAL (DARAB)
Region 3 office held that there was no valid sale or assignment of leasehold right
from Eugenia Esguerra to Angel Chico.
Chico went up to the DARAB Quezon City but DARAB QC affirmed with
modification the decision of the Provincial Adjudicator.
Petitioner appealed to CA but CA affirmed the DARAB decision.
ISSUE:
W/n CA erred in its decision
)     Whether the petitioner is the lawful holder or grantee of the
agricultural leasehold over the 1.5 hectares being previously tilled by
Eugenia Esguerra, and as grantee thereof, is entitled to the rights and
privileges stated and enumerated therein.
(2)     Whether the petitioner as holder or grantee of the certificate of
agricultural leasehold over the 1.5 hectares being previously tilled by
Eugenia Esguerra, is entitled to security of tenure.
(3)     Whether CAL No. 03-02-08-003-053 registered in the name of
petitioner presented for the first time by way of Motion for
 Reconsideration before DARAB-Quezon City should be admitted and
considered "substantial evidence" to prove leasehold agreement over the
subject parcel of land.
(4)     Whether express or implied leasehold relationship exists between
the petitioner and the respondents with the issuance of the subject
Certificate of Leasehold Agreement.

HELD:
The petition is bereft of merit.
SC emphasized that the pre-requisite conditions in order that an agricultural
leasehold relationship can be said to be extant; to wit:
The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
"(2)   The subject matter of the relationship is 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 the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee." 
The appellate court and DARAB found that private respondents were completely
unaware of the "insidious" sale or transfer or assignment of leasehold right from
the former lessee Eugenia Esguerra to petitioner until the matter was disclosed
by petitioner in the July 1988 BALA conference when, learning of it for the first
time, private respondents forthwith expressed their vehement objections thereto.
The issuance of the Certificate of Leasehold Agreement, CAL No. 03-02-08-003-
53, in the name of petitioner, presented for the first time in his motion for
reconsideration before the DARAB-Quezon City, was found to be dubious and
held unacceptable by the DARAB and, so also, later by the Court of Appeals.
SC affirmed CA decision.
 [G.R. No. 134735.  December 5, 2000.]
 

ANGEL CHICO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

CELESTINA P. JOSON, who is acting for herself and in representation of
her co-owner namely: BERNARDA, DEMETRIA, CELSA, MAURA, JULIANA,
MELENCIO and RAFAEL, all surnamed JOSON, respondents.
 

DECISION

VITUG, J  : p

        The petition for review assails the decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals of 19 September 1997 and 28 July 1998, respectively, affirming the
decision, dated 28 August 1995, of the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board ("DARAB").
        Petitioner Angel Chico and one Eugenia Esguerra were at one time
the agricultural lessees over a parcel of land owned by the Josons (Bernarda,
Demetria, Celsa, Maura, Juliana, Celestina, Melencio and Rafael) covered by
OCT No. 0-7892 with an area of 30,000 square meters, more or less, located at
Bugion, Calumpit, Bulacan.
        The DARAB decision stemmed from a complaint filed against Angel
Chico and Eugenia Esguerra by private respondents. Apparently, about half of
the lot was the subject of a leasehold agreement between the Josons and
petitioner, while the other half was covered by another leasehold contract
between the Josons and Eugenia Esguerra. When the Josons learned, on 19
July 1988 during a conference held at the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
("BALA") office, that petitioner was also physically cultivating the land previously
tilled by Esguerra, the Josons filed with BALA a formal "petition for ejectment
(dispossession) and collection of National Irrigation Administration ('NIA') dues"
against petitioner and Esguerra, alleging inter alia that without the knowledge
and consent of the Josons, Eugenia Esguerra conveyed for a consideration her
tenancy right to Angel Chico.
        The Josons prayed in their complaint (1) that Esguerra be decreed to
have lost or forfeited whatever tenancy right she had over the disputed lot; (2)
that Chico, his heirs or assigns, be ordered to vacate the 1.5-hectare lot formerly
tenanted by Esguerra; and (3) that finally, Chico be directed to pay whatever
irrigation fees, with the penalties and surcharges, that might be due to the
NIA.   DHECac
        In his answer, petitioner  denied "for lack of knowledge or information
1 

sufficient to form a belief" the allegations of the petition. Petitioner also

interposed the defense of lack of cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. During
the pendency of the case, private respondents and petitioner entered into a
partial compromise agreement, dated 20 December 1988, submitted to the
DARAB, Region III, where petitioner obligated himself to the following
undertakings:
"1.     Respondent Angel Chico hereby binds and commits himself to
settle his unpaid lease rental of 19 cavans weighing 50 kilos per cavan
for the panagaraw crop of 1988 this coming panagaraw season of 1989,
in addition to the lease rental for that given panagaraw crop, or a total of
38 cavans, which shall be fully receipted by the petitioner;
"2.     Respondent Angel Chico admits and hereby acknowledge he has
an outstanding obligation with the National Irrigation Administration on
his 1.5 hectare landholding under lease to him by the petitioner in the
aggregate amount of P10,719.42 as of June 30, 1988;
"3.     That respondent Angel Chico further undertakes to make a partial
payment on this NIA account by April of 1989 following harvest of the
panagaraw crop for that year, and to liquidate and update all his
aforesaid unpaid account with the NIA within three years from the date of
the execution of this partial compromise agreement."  2

        On 25 April 1989, the agreement was approved in toto and became

the basis of a partial resolution of the controversy, thereby leaving for
adjudication by the DARAB Regional Office the complaint for the ejectment of
petitioner with respect to the landholding previously tenanted by Eugenia
Esguerra.
        In a decision, dated 04 April 1991, the DARAB, Region III Office, held
that there was no valid sale or assignment of leasehold right from Eugenia
Esguerra to Angel Chico; thus:

"It is uncontroverted that the parcel of riceland under tenancy of Esguerra is

now physically cultivated by respondent Chico. Uncontroverted too, is the fact
that the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold issued to Esguerra has not yet
been cancelled up to the present. It is inconceivable to allow the parcel of land
in the name of Esguerra now being tilled by co-respondent Chico to continue
without violating agrarian reform laws. Likewise, it is quite hard to believe that
Esguerra is only allowing Chico to cultivate her landholding without any
consideration or for the meantime only as the respondent Chico having
already tilling the land for the past six years prior to the filing of this case.
These are clear manifestations that there was indeed an insidious sale,
transfer or assignment of leasehold right from Esguerra to Chico. This is
bolstered by the assumption of Chico of all the arrearages of Esguerra when
summoned for a conference for their failure to pay lease rentals on their
respective landholdings for the panag-araw crop of 1988 and their outstanding
arrearages with the National Irrigation Administration. Without the consent of
the landowner, respondent Chico could not validly say that his illegal
possession had ripened into a tenancy relationship. Implied consent of the
landowner is ruled out in the case at bar because petitioner came to know of
such sale only last July 1988 following respondents admission during a
conference held before the BALA in Malolos, Bulacan. Respondent Chico's
claim that he was issued a certificate of agricultural leasehold marked as
Annexes '1' and '2' clearly refer to his own landholding duly recognized by the
petitioner landowner and not to that of Eugenia Esguerra. Another important
factor to consider in upholding the petitioners stand is the fact that respondent
Esguerra never bothered to file an answer to belie the claim of the petitioner.
Her silence could only understood as an admission of the allegations in the
complaint. Thus, in selling her tenancy right in question to co-respondent
Chico, respondent Esguerra is deemed to have abandoned said landholding
which fall squarely within the provisions of Sec. 8 of R.A. 3844 as amended,
which prescribe the extinguishment of agricultural relation." 3
The decision concluded:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
"1.     Respondent Esguerra is hereby declared to have lost or forfeited
whatever tenancy right she has over the 1.5 has. land under her tenancy
in favor of the petitioner;
"2.     Respondent, Angel Chico who is found to be a mere intruder is
hereby ordered to vacate the 1.5 has. more or less land formerly
tenanted by Eugenia Esguerra;
"3.     Respondent Angel Chico having assumed all the arrearages of
Eugenia Esguerra, to pay the irrigation fees due and owing to the NIA
amounting to P10,719.42 as of June 30, 1988 and arrearages during the
 pendency of this case with all the penalties and surcharges attached
thereto up to the time he vacates the premises in question."  4

        Petitioner Angel Chico went up to the DARAB-Quezon City (DARAB

Case No. 0326, Regional Case No. 011-Bul.88) which, after due deliberation,
rendered a decision, dated 28 August 1995, affirming with modification the
decision of the Provincial Adjudicator, viz:
"From the foregoing considerations, the Board affirms the dispositive
conclusion of the decision appealed from with the following modifications:
1) Appellant Angel Chico shall not assume any and all arrearages which
Esguerra may have incurred up to the year 1987; 2) Appellant shall pay
to appellees the amount of thirteen (13) cavans of palay at fifty (50)
kilograms per cavan per harvest season including the irrigation fees
reckoned from the first harvest season of 1988 to the time appellant shall
finally vacate the 1.5-hectare landholding formerly tilled by Eugenia
Esguerra, in addition to the rentals in arrears and succeeding rentals due
on his area of tillage under the agricultural leasehold contract executed
by and between him and appellees herein; and 3) Appellant is ordered to
settle promptly his accounts with the National Irrigation Administration
with respect to the irrigation fees." 5
 

        Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the DARAB.

        Still dissatisfied, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a
decision, dated 19 September 1997, the appellant court affirmed the DARAB
decision; it agreed with the DARAB in its holding that there was abandonment of
the disputed tenanted area by Esguerra and in rejecting petitioner's claim that the
Josons consented to the takeover of the tenancy rights of Esguerra pursuant to
the Certificate of Agricultural Leasehold issued in the name of petitioner. In a
resolution, dated 28 July 1998, the appellate court denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration.
        The Court granted due course to the instant petition for review since,
ostensibly, the issues posed involved substantial legal issues, to wit:
(1)     Whether the petitioner is the lawful holder or grantee of the
agricultural leasehold over the 1.5 hectares being previously tilled by
Eugenia Esguerra, and as grantee thereof, is entitled to the rights and
privileges stated and enumerated therein.
(2)     Whether the petitioner as holder or grantee of the certificate of
agricultural leasehold over the 1.5 hectares being previously tilled by
Eugenia Esguerra, is entitled to security of tenure.
 (3)     Whether CAL No. 03-02-08-003-053 registered in the name of
petitioner presented for the first time by way of Motion for
Reconsideration before DARAB-Quezon City should be admitted and
considered "substantial evidence" to prove leasehold agreement over the
subject parcel of land.
(4)     Whether express or implied leasehold relationship exists between
the petitioner and the respondents with the issuance of the subject
Certificate of Leasehold Agreement.
        The petition is bereft of merit.
        Jurisprudence has established pre-requisite conditions in order that an
agricultural leasehold relationship can be said to be extant; to wit:
"(1)   The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
"(2)   The subject matter of the relationship is 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 the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee." 6
   The matter of whether or not such an agreement exists between petitioner
and private respondents over the parcel of land in question is a factual
question. [vii]7 The Court of Appeals and DARAB both have responded in the
affirmative. This Court respects that finding.   
        Each of the elements hereinbefore mentioned is essential to create
a de jure leasehold or tenancy relationship between the parties. This de
jure relationship, in turn, is the terra firma for a security of tenure between the
landlord and the tenant. The leasehold relationship is not brought about by a
mere congruence of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the
parties to that relationship should be primordial.
        The appellate court and DARAB found that private respondents were
completely unaware of the "insidious" sale or transfer or assignment of leasehold
right from the former lessee Eugenia Esguerra to petitioner until the matter was
disclosed by petitioner in the July 1988 BALA conference when, learning of it for
the first time, private respondents forthwith expressed their vehement objections
thereto. The issuance of the Certificate of Leasehold Agreement, CAL No. 03-02-
08-003-53, in the name of petitioner, presented for the first time in his motion for
reconsideration before the DARAB-Quezon City, was found to be dubious and
held unacceptable by the DARAB and, so also, later by the Court of Appeals.
Indeed, it was strange that the certificate, supposedly to have already been in
existence at the time, had not been promptly presented, either during the BALA
conference or when the case was brought to the DARAB Regional Office or
when the case was initially elevated to the DARAB-Main Office on appeal. At all
events, the much-vaunted certificate alone, in itself inconclusive,  would not
8 

amount to such substantial evidence that can permit this Court to turn the case
around.
        WHEREFORE, the petition for review must be, as it is so hereby
DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
        SO ORDERED.