G.R. No. 171972. June 8, 2011.

LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ,

petitioners, vs. TERESITA V. SALVADOR, respondent.

Agrarian Relations; Agricultural Tenancy; Tenancy;

Requisites.—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.
Same; Same; Same; Self-serving statements will not suffice to
prove consent of the landowner—independent evidence is
necessary.—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

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

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.
Same; Same; Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural
land will not ipso facto make the tiller an agricultural tenant—a
person who claims to be an agricultural tenant must prove by
substantial evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy.—
Aside from consent, petitioners also failed to prove sharing of
harvest. The affidavits of petitioners’ neighbors declaring that
respondent and her predecessors-in-interest 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.
Ejectment; In forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases, the
damages which could be recovered 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.—We must, however, clarify that
“the only damage that can be recovered [by respondent] is the fair
rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and
occupation of the leased property. The reason for this is that [in
forcible entry or unlawful detainer cases], the only issue raised in
ejectment cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages
which could be recovered are those which the [respondent] 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 [she] may have suffered but which have no direct relation
to [her] loss of material possession.”

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Certiorari.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

431

VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 431

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

  Amado B. Bajarias, Sr. for private respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven

by the person alleging it.
This Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court assails the August 24, 2005 Decision2 and the
February 20, 2006 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA G.R. SP No. 86599. However, per Resolution4 of this
Court dated August 30, 2006, the instant petition shall be
treated as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the same Rules.
Factual Antecedents
On May 22, 2003, respondent Teresita V. Salvador filed
a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer,5 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.6
Respondent alleged

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 3-134, with Annexes “A” to “R” inclusive.

2 Id., at pp. 23-32; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and
concurred in by Associate Justices Vicente L. Yap and Enrico A.
Lanzanas.
3 Id., at pp. 40-41.
4 Id., at p. 148. In the May 2, 2006 Resolution (id., at p. 136), the Court
dismissed the petition for certiorari for being a wrong mode of appeal; the
petition was evidently used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal;
and for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion in rendering the assailed Decision and
Resolution. Petitioners moved for reconsideration which was granted in
the August 30, 2006 Resolution. We thus reinstated the petition and treat
the same as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.
5 Id., at pp. 42-52.
6 Id., at p. 24.

432

432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

that she is the absolute owner of a parcel of land covered by

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-271407 issued by
virtue of Free Patent No. (VII-5) 2646 in the name of the
Heirs of Cristino Salvador represented by Teresita
Salvador;8 that petitioners acquired possession of the
subject land by mere tolerance of her predecessors-in-
interest;9 and that despite several verbal and written
demands made by her, petitioners refused to vacate the
subject land.10
In their Answer,11 petitioners interposed the defense of
agricultural tenancy. Lucia claimed that she and her
deceased husband, Serapio, entered the subject land with
the consent and permission of respondent’s predecessors-in-
interest, siblings Cristino and Sana Salvador, under the
agreement that Lucia and Serapio would devote the
property to agricultural production and share the produce
with the Salvador siblings.12 Since there is a tenancy
relationship between the parties, petitioners argued that it
is the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) which has jurisdiction over the case and not the
MTC.13
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.14
Ruling of the Municipal Trial Court
On September 10, 2003, the MTC promulgated a
Decision15

_______________

7  Id., at p. 47.
8  Id., at p. 42.
9  Id., at p. 43.
10 Id., at pp. 43-44.
11 Id., at pp. 53-59.
12 Id., at p. 54.
13 Id., at pp. 56-57.
14 Id., at pp. 60-61.
15  Id., at pp. 81-84; penned by Presiding Judge Thelma N. De Los
Santos.

433

VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 433

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

finding the existence of an agricultural tenancy

relationship between the parties, and thereby, dismissing
the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Pertinent portions of
the Decision read:

“Based on the facts presented, it is established that defendant

Lucia Rodriguez and her husband Serapio Rodriguez were
instituted as agricultural tenants on the lot in question by the
original owner who was the predecessor-in-interest of herein
plaintiff Teresita Salvador. The consent given by [the]original
owner to constitute [defendants] as agricultural tenants of subject
landholdings binds plaintiff who as successor-in-interest of the
original owner Cristino Salvador steps into the latter’s shoes
acquiring not only his rights but also his obligations towards the
herein defendants. In the instant case, the consent to tenurial
arrangement between the parties is 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.
Moreover, dispossession of agricultural tenants can only be
ordered by the Court for causes expressly provided under Sec. 36
of R.A. 3844. However, this Court has no jurisdiction over
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). ([S]ee Sec. 1(1.4) DARAB 2003
Rules of Procedure[.])
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant complaint
is hereby ordered DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.”16

Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal, docketed as Civil

Case No. AV-1237, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Argao, Cebu, Branch 26.17

_______________

16 Id., at p. 84.
17 Id., at p. 27.

434

434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 12, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision18
remanding the case to the MTC for preliminary hearing to
determine whether tenancy relationship exists between the
parties.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration19 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.
The fallo of the new Decision20 reads:

“WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

The Decision dated September 10, 2003 of the Municipal Trial
Court of Dalaguete, Cebu, is hereby AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO DECIDED.”21

Respondent sought reconsideration22 but it was denied

by the RTC in an Order23 dated August 18, 2004.Thus,
respondent filed a Petition for Review24 with the CA,
docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 86599.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On August 24, 2005, the CA rendered judgment in favor
of respondent. It ruled that no tenancy relationship exists
between the parties because petitioners failed to prove that

_______________

18 Id., at p. 99; penned by Judge Maximo A. Perez.

19 Id., at pp. 100-102.
20 Id., at pp. 103-104.
 21 Id., at p. 104.
22 Records, pp. 145-148.
23 CA Rollo, p. 66.
24 Rollo, pp. 105-117.

435

VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 435

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

respondent or her predecessors-in-interest consented to the

tenancy relationship.25 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.26 If at all, the affidavits merely
showed that petitioners occupied the subject land with the
consent of the original owners.27 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.28 Failing to do so, petitioners
are liable to pay damages.29 Thus, the CA disposed of the
case in this manner:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises,

judgment is hereby rendered by us SETTING ASIDE, as we
hereby set aside, the decision rendered by the RTC of Argao, Cebu
on June 23, 2004 in Civil Case No. AV-1237 and ORDERING the
remand of this case to the MTC of Dalaguete, Cebu for the
purpose of determining the amount of actual damages suffered by
the [respondent] by reason of the [petitioners’] refusal and failure
to turn over to [respondent] the possession and enjoyment of the
land and, then, to make such award of damages to the
[respondent].
SO ORDERED.”30

Issues

Hence, this petition raising the following issues:

I.
WHETHER X  X  X THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT
PETITIONERS-DEFENDANTS ARE NOT TENANTS OF THE
SUBJECT LAND.

_______________

25 Id., at p. 29.
26 Id., at pp. 29-30.
27 Id., at p. 30.
28 Id., at pp. 30-31.
29 Id., at p. 31.
 30 Id.

436

436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

II.
WHETHER X  X  X SUCH RULING OF THE COURT OF
APPEALS HAS FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS AND IS
SUPPORTED WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.31

Petitioners’ Arguments
Petitioners contend that under Section 532 of Republic
Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land
Reform Code, tenancy may be constituted by agreement of
the parties either orally or in writing, expressly or
impliedly.33 In this case, there was an implied consent to
constitute a tenancy relationship as respondent and her
predecessors-in-interest allowed petitioners to cultivate the
land and share the harvest with the landowners for more
than 40 years.34
Petitioners further argue that the CA erred in
disregarding the affidavits executed by their witnesses as
these are sufficient to prove the existence of a tenancy
relationship.35 Petitioners claim that their witnesses had
personal knowledge of the cultivation and the sharing of
harvest.36
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that
petitioners are not agricultural tenants because mere
cultivation of an agricultural land does not make the tiller
an agricultural

_______________

31 Id., at p. 10.
32 SECTION 5. Establishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation.—
The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of
law in accordance with Section four of this Code and, in other cases, either
orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly.
33 Rollo, p. 178.
34 Id., at pp. 178-179.
35 Id., at pp. 180-183.
36 Id., at p. 181.

437

VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 437

Rodriguez vs. Salvador
tenant.37 Respondent insists that her predecessors-in-
interest merely tolerated petitioners’ occupation of the
subject land.38

Our Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Agricultural tenancy relationship does
not exist in the instant case.
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.39
In this case, to prove that an agricultural tenancy
relationship exists between the parties, petitioners
submitted as evidence the affidavits of petitioner Lucia and
their neighbors. In her affidavit,40 petitioner Lucia declared
that she and her late husband occupied the subject land
with the consent and permission of the original owners and
that their agreement was that she and her late husband
would cultivate the subject land, devote it to agricultural
production, share the harvest with the landowners on a 50-
50 basis, and at the same time watch over the land.
Witness Alejandro Arias attested in his affidavit41 that
petitioner Lucia and her husband,

_______________

37 Id., at p. 193.
38 Id., at p. 192.
39 Soliman v. Pampanga Sugar Development Company (PASUDECO),
Inc., G.R. No. 169589, June 16, 2009, 589 SCRA 236, 246.
40 Rollo, pp. 75-76.
41 Id., at pp. 79-80.

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

Serapio, have been cultivating the subject land since 1960;

that after the demise of Serapio, petitioner Lucia and her
children continued to cultivate the subject land; and that
when respondent’s predecessors-in-interest were still alive,
he would often see them and respondent get some of the
harvest. The affidavit42 of witness Conseso Muñoz stated,
in essence, that petitioner Lucia has been in peaceful
possession and cultivation of the subject property since
1960 and that the harvest was divided into two parts, ½ for
the landowner and ½ for petitioner Lucia.
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.43 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.44
Aside from consent, petitioners also failed to prove
sharing of harvest. The affidavits of petitioners’ neighbors
declaring that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest
received their share in the harvest are not sufficient.
Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other
evidence to show

_______________

42 Id., at pp. 77-78.

43 Id., at p. 29.
44  De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., G.R. No. 153595, November 23,
2007, 538 SCRA 316, 322.

439

VOL. 651, JUNE 8, 2011 439

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

that there was sharing of harvest45 and that there was an

agreed system of sharing between them and the
landowners.46
As we have often said, mere occupation or cultivation of
an agricultural land will not ipso facto make the tiller an
agricultural tenant.47 It is incumbent upon a person who
claims to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial
evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy.48
In the instant case, petitioners failed to prove consent
and sharing of harvest between the parties. Consequently,
their defense of agricultural tenancy must fail. The MTC
has jurisdiction over the instant case. No error can
therefore be attributed to the CA in reversing and setting
aside the dismissal of respondent’s complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the remand of the case to the
MTC for the determination of the amount of damages due
respondent is proper.
Respondent is entitled to the fair
rental value or the reasonable
compensation for the use and
occupation of the  subject land.
We must, however, clarify that “the only damage that
can be recovered [by respondent] is the fair rental value or
the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of
the leased property. The reason for this is that [in forcible
entry or unlawful detainer cases], the only issue raised in
ejectment

_______________

45 Landicho v. Sia, G.R. No. 169472, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 602,
621; Adriano v. Tanco, G.R. No. 168164, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 218, 229.
46  Heirs of Jose Barredo v. Besañes, G.R. No. 164695, December 13,
2010, 637 SCRA 717 citing De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, Inc., supra at p.
323.
47 Landicho v. Sia, supra at p. 620.
48  NICORP Management and Development Corporation v. De Leon,
G.R. Nos. 176942 & 177125, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 606, 612.

440

440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rodriguez vs. Salvador

cases is that of rightful possession; hence, the damages

which could be recovered are those which the [respondent]
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 [she] may have suffered but which
have no direct relation to [her] loss of material
possession.”49
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed
August 24, 2005 Decision and the February 20, 2006
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 86599
are AFFIRMED. This case is ordered REMANDED to the
Municipal Trial Court of Dalaguete, Cebu, to determine the
amount of damages suffered by respondent by reason of the
refusal and failure of petitioners to turn over the
possession of the subject land, with utmost dispatch
consistent with the above disquisition.
SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De

Castro and Perez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.—Appeals from the decisions of the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) should be
filed with the Court of Appeals by verified petition for
review. (Po vs. Dampal, 608 SCRA 627 [2009])
 ——o0o—— 

_______________

49 Araos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107057, June 2, 1994, 232 SCRA
770, 776.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.