ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 167024.
Buzon vs. Alemania
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 167024 (Alberto Buzon vs. Adelaida B. Alemania.)
At bar is this petition for review on certiorari of the
Respondent Adelaida B. Alemania is the registered owner of a 4. 2792-hectare agricultural land identified as Lot No. 4660 of the Hilongos Cadastre, located at Conception, Hilongos, Leyte and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-32253 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Leyte.
On June 23, 1982, before respondent inherited said parcel of land from her mother Rosalia Alemania, the latter entered into agricultural leasehold contracts with a certain Agripina Loreche (Agripina) and Quintin Flores over certain portions of the same land, which contracts subsisted even after respondent inherited the property from her mother. Because respondent is a nun, being a member of the Congregation of the Presentation of Mary, the property was administered by her brother, Romeo Alemania (Romeo) and, after the latter's death, by respondent's other siblings.
On
Sometime in early 2000, petitioner Alberto Buzon implored upon Agripina to allow him to till a portion of the latter's tenanted areas to ease his financial difficulties. Agripina agreed on condition that Buzon's tillage be good for only two planting seasons. This was, however, without the consent whatsoever of respondent Adelaida B. Alemania nor her duly authorized representative. Buzon thereafter tilled a one (1) hectare portion of the land.
Two (2) planting seasons have come and gone but Buzon refused to
turn over the portion occupied by him and continued to plant rice thereon. When
told by Agripina to vacate the land, Buzon refused, claiming that Romeo owed
his (Buzon's) father P30,000.00 and
that he would continue tillage of the land until said amount is paid.
On
On
In his answer, Buzon alleged that he has been a tenant of Alemania for a long time, and asserted that the MTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case as the suit involves question of tenancy which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
In a decision
[2]
cralaw
dated
FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the court finds for the plaintiff and hereby orders defendant to vacate the premises described as Lot 4660-A of the commissioner's report and to deliver possession thereof to plaintiff. Defendant is also hereby ordered to pay the cost of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
However, on Buzon's appeal to the RTC whereat his recourse was
docketed as Civil Case No. H-423, the latter court, in its decision
[3]
cralaw
of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision on appeal is hereby REVERSED. Accordingly, Civil Case No R-369 is DISMISSED for the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
Respondent Alemania then went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court in CA-G.R. SP No. 83401.
In a decision dated
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is
hereby rendered by us REVERSING the decision rendered by the RTC in Hilongos, Leyte
on
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Buzon is now with us seeking the reversal of the CA decision, insisting on the existence of tenancy relationship between him and respondent.
We DENY.
A mere claim that one is a tenant on an agricultural land of another cannot be taken at its face value for the purpose of determining whether the case is agrarian or otherwise. There should be a deeper look into the presence of all the essential elements of a tenancy relationship, as absence of one requisite does not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant, as distinguished from a tenant de jure. [5] cralaw
Here, it has been established that petitioner entered respondent's land and tilled a portion thereof by mere tolerance of Agripina Loreche, the bona fide tenant thereon. Agripina, on her own personal discretion and disposition, yielded to petitioner's entreaties on condition that the latter's tillage be good only for two (2) planting seasons. As it is, petitioner's entry into a portion of the land was neither with the knowledge nor consent of respondent or her duly authorized representative. It was only when Agripina began to have problems because of petitioner's refusal to vacate the area after two planting seasons that respondent came to know of petitioner's presence thereat, whereupon she demanded of petitioner to vacate theportionoccupiedbyhim.Withthe reality that respondent never gave her consent to the establishment of any tenancy or leasehold relationship between her and petitioner, it goes without saying that the latter was never a legitimate tenanton the land in question.
We thus quote with approval the following findings of the MTC:
It is noteworthy that even before ownership of the land was transferred to plaintiff [herein respondent], its previous owner, [respondent's] mother, had already executed written agricultural leasehold contracts with Agripina Loreche and Quintin Flores. In contrast, no written contract between Juanito Buzon, [his] alleged predecessor-in-interest, and the [respondent's] predecessor-in-interest, Rosalia or Sosang Alemania, was shown to exist. During the administration of Romeo Alemania, when two written leasehold contracts were executed between him and Agripina Loreche, no written contract was shown to exist between Romeo Alemania and Juanito Buzon. These circumstances tend to show that it is customary for [respondent's] predecessor-in-interest and [respondent] through her administrator to reduce tenurial arrangements in writing. No cogent reason is offered by [petitioner] why the situation between his father and the [respondent's] predecessor-in-interest and [respondent] herself did not necessitate the making of a written agreement in contradistinction to the case of the other agricultural lessees, Agripina Loreche and Quintin Flores. These cast serious doubt on the [petitioner's] claim of a priorly existing tenurial relation between his and [respondent's] predecessor-in-interest. The certification issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office, the agency mandated to implement agrarian laws, as to the absence of any record of tenurial agreement between the parties herein deserves more credence that the vague asseveration by [respondent's] witnesses.
xxx��� xxx��� xxx
Absent the indispensable element of consent between the parties, there can be no tenant-landlord relation between [respondent] and [petitioner] as regards Lot 4660-A. One whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a deforciant illegally occupying the land or property the moment he is required to leave (Caniza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 110427, February 27, 1997).
All told, we rule and so hold that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in holding that the MTC has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the unlawful detainer case filed with it by respondent against petitioner, precisely because no tenancy relations existed between the parties herein.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. of the former Eighteenth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 58-69
[3] cralaw Rollo, pp. 70-74.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 28-34.
[5] cralaw
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
