Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972 - Case Digest

Doctrines:
 Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven by the person alleging it. It is incumbent upon one who
claiming to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy.
Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June 8, 2011

DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
The case is a petition for certiorari to assail the Court Appeals’ decision which denied the pettioner’s
appeal and held that no tenancy relationship existed between them and respondent. The facts of the case
were as follows:
 The respondent here, Teresita Salvador the owner of a parcel of land, filed a Complaint for Unlawful
Detainer against the petitioners here, Lucia (Lucia) and Prudencia Rodriguez, mother and daughter,
before the MTC of Dalaguete, Cebu. Salvador also further asserted that petitioners only acquired
possession of the subject land by mere tolerance of her predecessors-in interest; and that despite
several verbal and written demands made by her, petitioners refused to vacate the subject land. In
their answer, the respondents on the other hand, claimed that they were agricultural tenants of
Salvador and her siblings. Lucia claimed that she and her deceased husband, Serapio, entered the
subject land with the consent and permission of respondent’s predecessors-ininterest, Cristino and
Sana Salvador, who are Lucia’s siblings. Lucia further claimed that it was their agreement with the
Salvador siblings, that they would devote the property to agricultural production and share the
produce with the siblings. And since an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between them, then it
is the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case, and not the MTC.
 The MTC in its decision ruled in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
as it held that an agricultural tenancy relationship existed between the parties. The MTC also noted
that the consent to tenurial arrangement between the parties was inferred from the fact that the
plaintiff and her successors-in-interest had received their share of the harvests of the property in
dispute from the defendants. Thus it held that it had no jurisdiction over the detainer case involving
agricultural tenants as ejectment and dispossession of said tenants is within the primary and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Agricultural Board (DARAB).
 On appeal by respondent Salvador, the RTC in its decision at first remanded the case to the MTC, but
after a motion for reconsideration by petitioners, it finally ruled in favor of the latter and affirmed the
decision of the MTC.
 Aggrieved, respondent elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, and this time it ruled in her favor
and held that no tenancy relationship existed between the parties because petitioners failed to prove
that Salvador or her predecessors-in-interest consented to the tenancy relationship. The CA likewise
gave no probative value to the affidavits of petitioners’ witnesses as it found their statements
insufficient to establish petitioners’ status as agricultural tenants. Thus the CA also remanded the case
to the MTC, to grant the award of damages to respondent for refusal and failure of the petitioners to
vacate the property.
 Hence, the present petition by respondents, who insisted that a tenancy relationship existed because
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, provides
that tenancy may be constituted by agreement of the parties either orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly. In this case, they argued that there was an implied consent to constitute a tenancy
relationship as Salvador and her predecessors-in-interest allowed them to cultivate the land and share
the harvest with the landowners for more than 40 years. They also assailed the Court of Appeals’
disregard of the affidavits executed by their witnesses to prove the existence of the tenancy
relationship, given that these witnesses had personal knowledge of the cultivation and sharing of the
harvest.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not an agricultural tenancy relationship existed in view of the implied consent
given by respondent and her predecessors-in-interest to petitioners.
RULING:
No. Agricultural tenancy relationship does not exist in the instant case. The SC held that agricultural
tenancy may only exists when all the following requisites are present: 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 tenant or agricultural lessee.
The statements in the affidavits presented by the petitioners are not sufficient to prove the existence of an
agricultural tenancy. As correctly found by the CA, the element of consent is lacking. Except for the self-
serving affidavit of Lucia, no other evidence was submitted to show that respondent’s predecessors-in-
interest consented to a tenancy relationship with petitioners. Self-serving statements, however, will not
suffice to prove consent of the landowner; independent evidence is necessary.
Digested by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1

Doctrines:
 Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven by the person alleging it. It is incumbent upon one who
claiming to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy.
In this case, the affidavits of petitioners’ neighbors declaring that respondent and her predecessors-in-
interest received their share in the harvest were 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. As the court already held, mere occupation or cultivation
of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make the tiller an agricultural tenant. It is incumbent
upon a person who claims to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the
requisites of agricultural tenancy.
However, the court added that the damages which may only be recovered in forcible entry or unlawful
detainer cases, are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused
by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered
but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. Therefore, respondent Salvador is
only entitled to the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the
subject land.
Thus in view of the foregoing, the court moved to deny the petition and ordered that the case be
remanded to the MTC for the determination of the amount of damages suffered by respondent Salvador
by reason of the refusal and failure of petitioners to turn over the possession of the subject land.
Digested by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 2

Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972 - Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrines:

Rodriguez vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 171972, June 8, 2011

Digested by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 1

Digested by: Alena Icao-Anotado pg. 2

You might also like