RODRIGUEZ vs SALVADOR, G.R. No. 171972 June 8, 2011 - case digest

LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners,

vs

TERESITA V. SALVADOR, Respondent.

G.R. No. 171972 June 8, 2011

FACTS:

• On May 22, 2003, respondent Teresita V. Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 330, against petitioners Lucia (Lucia) and Prudencia Rodriguez, mother and daughter, respectively before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dalaguete, Cebu. Respondent alleged that she is the absolute owner of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P27140 issued by virtue of Free Patent No. (VII5) 2646 in the name of the Heirs of Cristino Salvador represented by Teresita Salvador; that petitioners acquired possession of the subject land by mere tolerance of her predecessorsininterest; and that despite several verbal and written demands made by her, petitioners refused to vacate the subject land.
• On July 10, 2003, the preliminary conference was terminated and the parties were ordered to submit their respective position papers together with the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence to support their respective claims.
• On September 10, 2003, the MTC promulgated a Decision finding the existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship between the parties, and thereby, dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
• Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with the Regiona Trial Court (RTC). On January 12, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision remanding the case to the MTC for preliminary hearing to determine whether tenancy relationship exists between the parties. Petitioners moved for reconsideration arguing that the purpose of a preliminary hearing was served by the parties submission of their respective position papers and other supporting evidence.
• On June 23, 2004, the RTC granted the reconsideration and affirmed the MTC Decision dated September 10, 2003. Respondent sought reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC.
• Thus, respondent filed a Petition for Review with the CA. the CA rendered judgment in favor of respondent. It ruled that no tenancy relationship exists between the parties because petitioners failed to prove that respondent or her predecessorsininterest 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. If at all, the affidavits merely showed that petitioners occupied the subject land with the consent of the original owners. And since petitioners are occupying the subject land by mere tolerance, they are bound by an implied promise to vacate the same upon demand by the respondent. Failing to do so, petitioners are liable to pay damages.

ISSUE:

• W/N Agricultural tenancy relationship exists between thepetitioners and the respondent.

HELD: NO

Agricultural tenancy 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 selfserving affidavit of Lucia, no other evidence was submitted to show that respondents predecessorsininterest consented to a tenancy relationship with petitioners. Selfserving

statements, however, will not suffice to prove consent of the landowner; independent evidence is necessary.

Aside from consent, petitioners also failed to prove sharing of harvest. The affidavits of petitioners neighbors declaring that respondent and her predecessorsininterest 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.

As we have often said, 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.