LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ V. TERESITA V. SALVADOR [651 SCRA 429; June 08, 2011] DEL CA STILLO, STILLO, J. DOCTRINE : Agricultural tenancy is not presumed but must be proven by the person alleging it. FACTS: Respondent Teresita V. Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer, against petitioners Lucia and Prudencia Rodriguez, mother and daughter, respectively. respectivel y. Respondent alleged that she is the absolute owner of a parcel of land in the name of the Heirs of Cristino Salvador represented by her and that petitioners acquired possession of the subject land by mere tolerance of her predecessorsin-interest; and that despite several verbal and written demands made by her, petitioners refused to vacate the subject land. In their Answer, 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. 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 over the case case and not not the MTC. MTC. MTC: there exists an agricultural agricultura l tenancy relationship relationshi p between the parties. Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal. RTC initially remanded the case to the MTC for preliminary preliminar y hearing but upon motion for reconsideration, RTC affirmed the MTC Decision. Respondent sought reconsideration reconsiderati on but it was denied by the RTC thus elevating the case to the CA. 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 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 agricultur al 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. 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, 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, basis, and at the same time watch over the land. Witness Alejandro Alejandr o Arias attested in his affidavit that petitioner Lucia and her husband, 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 of the harvest. The affidavit of witness Conseso 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is agricultural tenancy in this case RULING: Agricultural Agricult ural 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. 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. Petitioners also failed to prove sharing of harvest. 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. 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.
